[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 23306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11248]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Notice of Partial Denial of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity for Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has
partially denied a request by Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee)
for amendments to Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-
52, issued to the licensee for operation of the Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments was published in the
Federal Register on February 11, 1998 (63 FR 6983).
The licensee's application of December 18, 1997, as revised by a
letter dated January 28, 1998, proposed numerous changes to the FOLs.
The licensee proposed to revise the FOLs to delete license conditions
that have been fulfilled, to update information to reflect current
plant status and regulatory requirements, and to make other
correctional, clarifying, or editorial changes. The staff issued
amendments to the FOLs, accepting most of the proposed changes. The
balance of the proposed changes were not accepted by the staff. The
changes that were not accepted are summarized as follows:
1. For the license conditions that have been fulfilled, and the
exemptions that are no longer needed, the licensee proposed to have
them deleted entirely from the FOLs. The staff, however, believes that
indications should be left in the FOLs to provide easy reference to
these past license conditions and exemptions. The staff preserved the
license condition and exemption numbers with the word ``Deleted''
following in parentheses. Further, the staff did not renumber those
license conditions still in existence. Hence, the licensee's proposed
changes are partially denied.
2. The licensee proposed to modify the statement that described the
construction status as ``has been substantially completed'' to ``was
completed.'' The staff surveyed FOLs granted to other facilities, and
found that the expression ``has been substantially'' is used in each
FOL, and its meaning is thus established by such repeated use. The
licensee has not provided any reason for the proposed change, other
than stating that this is an administrative change to ``update the FOL
to the current historical status.'' Thus, this proposed change is
denied.
3. The licensee proposed to delete the reference to the
Environmental Report, as supplemented, from the FOLs. The licensee gave
no justification for deleting the reference to the Environmental
Report, which has been required by the National Environmental Policy
Act and 10 CFR Part 51, and was a significant part of the basis for
granting the FOLs. This proposed change is denied.
4. The licensee proposed to delete any reference to revision
numbers to security plans since these security plans are subject to
change periodically. However, 10 CFR 50.54(p) has set forth the
conditions under which the licensee may make changes without NRC
approval, such that the specified revision numbers do not prevent the
licensee from making such changes. Hence, the licensee's proposal to
omit revision numbers and dates is denied.
The NRC staff has concluded that the licensee's proposed changes
described above are unacceptable and are denied. The licensee was
notified of the staff's denial by letter dated April 23, 1998.
By May 28, 1998, the licensee may demand a hearing with respect to
the denial described above. Any person whose interest may be affected
by this proceeding may file a written request for leave to intervene.
A request for hearing or 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 any petition should also be sent to the Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and to Mr. Paul R. Newton, Duke Energy Corporation, 422
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242, attorney for the
licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the
application for amendments dated December 17, 1997, and (2) the
Commission's letter to the licensee dated April 23, 1998, which are
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 29730.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of April 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-11248 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
