[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38433-38435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18960]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287]
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.
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, respectively, located in Seneca, South Carolina.
If approved, the proposed amendments would allow temporary
noncompliance with the Penetration Room Ventilation System air flow
surveillance requirements of Technical Specification (TS) 4.5.4.1.b.1
until modifications can be completed to support testing in accordance
with ANSI Standard N510-1975, as required by the TSs. These
modifications are scheduled to be completed on all three units by
August 30, 1998.
Oconee TS 4.5.4.1.b.1 requires that every 18 months the Penetration
Room Ventilation System fans be demonstrated to operate at design flow
(+/-10 percent) when tested in accordance with ANSI Standard N510-1975.
ANSI Standard N510-1975 requires that a pitot tube velocity-traverse
method be used in accordance with Section 9 of the American Conference
of Government Industrial Hygienists Industrial Ventilation
requirements. The flow measurement method that has been used since
original construction uses installed orifice plates to measure the air
flow.
However, during a Safety System Engineering Inspection at Oconee
for the Control Room Ventilation System (CRVS) and Penetration Room
Ventilation System (PRVS), the NRC identified a violation that
indicated that the PRVS fans were not tested in accordance with the TSs
and ANSI Standard N510-1975. This violation was included in Inspection
Report Nos. 50-269/98-03, 50-270/98-03, and 50-287/09-03 dated May 4,
1998. By letter dated June 4, 1998, the licensee denied the violation
based on a belief that the use of the orifice plates met the
requirements of the TSs and the ANSI standard. As part of the review of
this issue, the licensee conducted flow measurement tests using a pitot
tube array and attempted (unsuccessfully) to locate calibration data
for the orifices. The licensee was unable to develop an alternate
method to measure flow that was reliable.
By letter dated July 6, 1998, the NRC informed the licensee that
its denial of the violation was rejected. Consequently, the licensee
entered TS 3.0, which required that all three units be in the hot
shutdown condition within 12 hours, and requested that a Notice of
Enforcement Discretion (NOED) be granted. The NOED was issued on July
8, 1998, and will be effective until the proposed amendments that were
submitted on July 8, 1998, are processed. Since the proposed amendments
are designed to complete the review process and implement the TS
changes, pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding exercising discretion
for an operating facility set out in Section VII.c of the ``General
Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions''
(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, and be effective for the period until
the issuance of the related TS amendments, these circumstances require
that the amendments be processed under exigent circumstances.
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 amendments 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:
[This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards
in 10 CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant
hazards, in that operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendments would not:]
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated:
This proposed change does not increase the probability of an
accident evaluated in the SAR [Safety Analysis Report] because:
This evaluation addresses the potential impact of revising
Technical Specification 4.5.4.1.b.1 to include a note to allow a
temporary noncompliance with this surveillance requirement until
August 30, 1998, to complete the necessary modifications to enable
flow testing in accordance with ANSI N510-1975.
As described in the technical justification (Attachment 3 [of
the July 8, 1998, submittal]), the use of orifice plates in the
Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 Penetration Room Ventilation Systems
(PRVSs) to measure the flow from the PRVS fans, in lieu of ANSI
N510-1975 requirements, does not increase the probability of an
accident evaluated in the SAR because this condition is not an
accident initiator. There is no physical change to any plant
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or operating procedures.
Neither electrical power systems, nor important to safety mechanical
SSCs will be adversely affected. The PRVS has been evaluated as
operable for normal and accident conditions. There are no shutdown
margin, reactivity management, or fuel integrity concerns. There is
no increase in accident initiation likelihood, therefore analyzed
accident scenarios are not impacted.
This proposed change does not increase the probability of a
malfunction of equipment important to safety evaluated in the SAR
because:
As described in the technical justification, the use of orifice
plates which are currently used in Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 to
measure the flow from the PRVS fans, in lieu of ANSI N510-1975
requirements, does not increase the probability of a malfunction of
equipment important to safety. This activity does not physically
change or modify any plant system, structure, or component. The PRVS
is QA [quality assurance] condition 1 (QA-1) and is required to
filter reactor building leakage which enters the East and West
Penetration Rooms. This activity does not change any test
procedures. Nothing is being done to inhibit the integrity or
function of the PRVS. No valve manipulations, electrical alignments,
or system configurations are required.
This change does not increase the consequences of an accident
evaluated in the SAR because:
This activity will not adversely affect the ability to mitigate
any SAR described accidents. The PRVS flow is within the system
design limits as measured by the orifice plates. In addition, Duke
[Duke Energy Corporation] has performed bounding analyses which
demonstrate that the carbon filter efficiency is still within the
Technical Specification limits at higher flow rates. Therefore,
Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 will meet system design requirements for
the PRVS. There is no adverse impact on containment integrity,
radiological release pathways, fuel
[[Page 38434]]
design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve setpoints, or
radwaste systems.
This change does not increase the consequences of a malfunction
of equipment important to safety evaluated in the SAR because:
No safety related or important to safety equipment necessary to
place or maintain the plant in safe shutdown condition will be
impacted by allowing a temporary noncompliance with this
surveillance requirement until August 30, 1998, to complete flow
testing in accordance with ANSI N510-1975. As described in the
technical justification, the use of orifice plates which are
currently used in Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 to measure the flow from
the PRVS fans, in lieu of ANSI N510-1975 requirements, does not
increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
safety. The PRVS flow is within the system design limits as measured
by the orifice plates. In addition, Duke has performed bounding
analyses which demonstrate that the carbon filter efficiency is
still within the Technical Specification limits at higher flow
rates. Therefore, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 will meet system design
requirements for the PRVS. There is no adverse impact on containment
integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration
systems, main steam relief valve setpoints, or radwaste systems.
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated:
This change does not create the possibility for an accident of a
different type than any evaluated in the SAR because:
There is no increased risk of unit trip, or challenge to the
Reactor Protection System (RPS) or other safety systems. There is no
physical effect on the plant, i.e. none on Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) temperature, boron concentration, control rod manipulations,
core configuration changes, and no impact on nuclear
instrumentation. There is no increased risk of a reactivity
excursion. No new failure modes or credible accident scenarios are
postulated from this activity.
This change does not create the possibility for a malfunction of
a different type than any evaluated in the SAR because:
There is no physical change to the plant SSCs or operating
procedures. This change does not involve any plant changes,
electrical lineups, or valve manipulations. Analyses have been
performed which demonstrate that the PRVS can perform its intended
safety function relying on the orifice plates to measure flow. No
new equipment or components were installed. No credible new failures
are postulated.
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This change does not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety because:
No function of any importance to safety SSC will be adversely
affected or degraded as a result of continued operation. No safety
parameters, setpoints, or design limits are changed. There is no
adverse impact to the nuclear fuel, cladding, RCS, or required
containment systems.
Duke has concluded, based on the above, that there are no
significant hazards considerations involved in this amendment
request.
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 August 17, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, 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
[[Page 38435]]
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
amendment and make it 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 amendment.
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. J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston
and Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 8, 1998, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of July 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David E. LaBarge,
Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-18960 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
