[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14274-14275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7167]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-35 and NPF-52, issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee),
for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS), deleting Section 3.3.7, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System
(CRAVS) Actuation Instrumentation,'' and Section 3.3.8, ``Auxiliary
Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES) Actuation
Instrumentation.'' The basis for the proposed deletion is that Sections
3.3.7 and 3.3.8 do not correctly reflect the design of the Catawba
CRAVS and ABFVES control systems. At Catawba, the Solid State
Protection System (SSPS) provides input to the diesel generator load
sequencer, which, in turn, provides input to the CRAVS and ABFVES.
Thus, the CRAVS and ABFVES are not directly actuated by the SSPS.
However, the surveillance requirements currently specified by Sections
3.3.7 and 3.3.8 are written on the assumption that the CRAVS and ABFVES
are directly actuated by the SSPS.
The licensee requested approval on an exigent basis pursuant to its
request for enforcement discretion. The staff verbally granted the
enforcement discretion on March 11, 1999, and affirmed it by a
subsequent notice of enforcement discretion (NOED) letter dated March
15, 1999. The NOED letter stated that the enforcement discretion is in
effect until the issuance of amendments to revise Section 3.3.7 and
3.3.8. The staff intends to issue such amendments within 4 weeks of the
NOED letter. This issuance schedule would not be accommodated by the
normal 30-day notice to the public.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
First Standard
Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Approval of this amendment will have no effect
on accident probabilities or consequences. No physical changes are
being made to the plant design which will result in any increase in
accident probabilities. Approval of this amendment will not result
in a decrease in system or equipment reliability or availability.
Therefore, there will be no impact on any accident consequences.
Second Standard
Implementation of this amendment would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. No new accident causal mechanisms are created
as a result of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes
are being made to the plant that will introduce any new accident
causal mechanisms.
Third Standard
Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform
their design functions during and following an accident situation.
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant
system, and the containment system. The performance of these fission
product barriers will not be degraded by the implementation of this
amendment. No safety margins will be impacted.
Based upon the preceding discussion, Duke Energy Corporation has
concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendments before the expiration
of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is
that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will consider all public and State comments
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in
the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By April 23, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect
[[Page 14275]]
to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating license
and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and
who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a
written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,
NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at
the York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill, South
Carolina. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene
is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/
or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy
the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within
the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
If the amendments are issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the
hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendments.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendments.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Ms, Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department
(PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte,
North Carolina, 28201, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(I)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated March 15, 1999, as supplemented by
letter dated March 17, 1999, which is available for public inspection
at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room
located at the York County Library, 138 East Black Street, Rock Hill,
South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-7167 Filed 3-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
