[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37628-37630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18362]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]
Duke Power Company, et al.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 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 the Duke Power Company, et al. (DPC or the
licensee) for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 and 2,
located in York County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendments, requested by the licensee in a letter
dated May 27, 1997, would represent a full conversion from the current
Technical Specifications (TS) to a set of TS based on NUREG-1431,
Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants,''
dated April 1995. NUREG-1431 has been developed through working groups
composed of both NRC staff members and industry representatives and has
been endorsed by the staff as part of an industry-wide initiative to
standardize and improve TS. As part of this submittal, the licensee has
applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy
Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power
Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal Register
on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the current Catawba TS, and, using
NUREG-1431 as a basis, developed a proposed set of improved TS for
Catawba. The criteria in the Final Policy Statement were subsequently
added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a rule change,
which was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR
36953) and became effective on August 18, 1995.
The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the existing
TS into five general groupings. These groupings are characterized as
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes,
less restrictive changes, and removed detail changes.
Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or
substantially revising an operational requirement. The reformatting,
renumbering, and rewording processes reflect the attributes of NUREG-
1431 and do not involve technical changes to the existing TS. The
proposed changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc.,
for NUREG-1431 bracketed information (information which must be
supplied on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to
plant), (b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc.,
and (c) changing NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing
licensee practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do
not impact initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events.
More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent
requirements for operation of the facility or eliminate existing
flexibility. These more stringent requirements do not result in
operation that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an
accident or transient event. The more restrictive requirements will not
alter the operation of process variables, structures, systems and
components described in the safety analyses. For each requirement in
the current Catawba TS that is more restrictive than the corresponding
requirement in NUREG-1431, which the licensee proposes to retain in the
improved Technical Specifications (ITS), the licensee has provided an
explanation of why it has concluded that retaining the more restrictive
requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the facilities
because of specific design features of the plant.
Less restrictive changes are those where current requirements are
relaxed or eliminated, or new flexibility is provided. The more
significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are justified on a case-
by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide little or
no safety benefit, their removal from the TS may be appropriate. In
most cases, relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a
plant-specific basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b)
new NRC staff positions that have evolved from technological
advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners
Groups' comments on the ITS. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-
1431 were reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they
are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations.
The licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific
design basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical
basis for the model requirements in NUREG-1431 and, thus, provides a
basis for these revised TS or if relaxation of the requirements in the
current TS is warranted based on the justification provided by the
licensee.
Removed detail changes move details from the current TS to a
licensee-controlled document. The details being removed from the
current TS are considered not to be initiators of any analyzed events
nor required to mitigate accidents or transients. Therefore, such
removals do not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Moving some details
to licensee-controlled documents will not involve a significant change
in design or operation of the plant and no hardware is being added to
the plant as part of the proposed changes to the current TS. The
changes will not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and
licensing basis. Therefore, the changes will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The changes do not reduce the margin of safety since they
have no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. In addition, the
details to be moved from the current
[[Page 37629]]
TS to a licensee-controlled document are the same as the existing TS.
Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TS. Relocated
changes are those current TS requirements that do not satisfy or fall
within any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy
statement and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled
documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described
in that portion of its May 27, 1997, application titled ``Application
of Selection Criteria to the Catawba Unit 1 and 2 Technical
Specifications'' in Volume 1 of the submittal. The affected structures,
systems, components, or variables are considered not to be initiators
of analyzed events nor required to mitigate accident or transient
events. The requirements and surveillances for these affected
structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from
the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the TS Bases, the Selected
Licensee Commitments Manual, or plant procedures. Changes made to these
documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate
control mechanisms. In addition, the affected structures, systems,
components, or variables are addressed in existing surveillance
procedures which are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed
changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements.
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.
By August 13, 1997, the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the amendment 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 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 amendment 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.
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 Mr. Paul R. Newton, Legal Department
(PBO5E), Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28242.
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).
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated May 27, 1997, 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 7th day of July 1997.
[[Page 37630]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-18362 Filed 7-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
