[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58109-58111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28605]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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 Power Company, et al. (the licensee) 
for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
York County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendments would modify Section 6.0, ``Administrative 
Controls,'' of the licensee's Catawba, McGuire, and Oconee nuclear 
stations, which have been submitted as a joint application. A summary 
description is provided as follows.
    The requested amendments remove the specific assignment of 
responsibilities for the review, distribution, and approval activities 
contained in the Technical Review and Control Section of each station's 
Technical Specifications. The proposed specifications state that these 
activities will be performed by a knowledgeable individual/
organization. Approval of the affected documents is to be at the 
appropriate manager/superintendent level as specified in Duke 
administrative controls.
    The requested amendments move the requirement for the review of 
proposed changes in the stations' Technical Specifications and 
Operating Licenses by the Duke Nuclear Safety Review Board (NSRB) to 
Duke administrative procedures (Selected Licensee Commitments 
documents) and change the wording of the requirements covering NSRB 
meeting frequency.
    The requested amendments add Technical Review and Control Program 
implementation and Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) 
implementation to the list of required procedures and programs for each 
nuclear station.
    The requested amendments change or clarify certain Technical 
Specification administrative requirements covering technical review and 
control activities or records retention 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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the 
amendments requested involve 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: (It should be noted that the 
licensee submitted a combined 

[[Page 58110]]
analysis that covers McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee nuclear stations.)

    Standard #1. The proposed amendments will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The provisions of these proposed amendments concern 
administrative changes in the stations' Technical Specifications 
involving the Technical Review and Control, Procedures and Programs/
Station Operating Procedures, and Records Retention/Station 
Operating Records portions of the Administrative Controls Section. 
The requested changes primarily affect review and control 
activities, but also include other administrative changes affecting 
the approval of station procedures (Oconee only), records retention, 
and definition of the term ODCM [offsite dose calculation manual] 
(McGuire and [Catawba]). The provisions of the proposed amendment[s] 
primarily involve the relocation of existing Technical 
Specifications review, distribution, or approval requirements to 
internal Duke administrative controls. However, implementation of 
the proposed amendment[s] [do] involve changes to several review/
distribution activities. These review/distribution activities are 
primarily for: 1) Proposed changes to the stations' Technical 
Specifications, 2) Proposed tests and experiments which affect 
nuclear safety and are not addressed in the stations' FSAR [Final 
Safety Analysis Report] or Technical Specifications, 3) 
Environmental radiological procedures, 4) Reportable events 
documentation and reports of violations of Technical Specifications, 
5) Reports of special reviews and investigations, and 6) Reports of 
unplanned onsite releases of radiological material to the environs. 
Planned implementation of the proposed Technical Specifications 
amendments utilizing Selected Licensee Commitments will result in 
the above items being reviewed/received by a different 
organizational unit in the future. The organizational unit is to be 
either the recently initiated Plant Operations Review Committee 
(PORC) or the General Manager, Environmental Services. Personnel 
serving on the PORC, and the General Manager, Environmental Services 
will be qualified based upon education and experience to review the 
operational and technical considerations involved with the 
applicable items listed above. No required reviews are being 
eliminated by the requested amendments, only the organizational 
units responsible for performing the reviews will be changed. Future 
reviews of these items under the auspices of the PORC or the General 
Manager, Environmental Services will maintain a quality level 
equivalent to that being currently achieved by Duke's Qualified 
Reviewer Program, the Station Managers, or the Duke Nuclear Safety 
Review Board as applicable. Consequently, merely changing the 
organizational units performing future reviews, or making the 
additional administrative changes described above, results in no 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated because the review function will continue to be 
conducted in an equivalent manner.
    The implementing SLC will also permit proposed amendments to the 
stations' Technical Specifications and Operating Licenses to be 
approved for the Station Manager by a designee. However, this 
individual will occupy a position equivalent to, or higher, in the 
Duke organization as the Station Manager.
    Additionally, the proposed changes do not directly impact the 
design or operation of any plant systems or components any more so 
than the review and approval processes currently being conducted in 
accordance with existing approved Technical Specifications.
    Standard #2. The proposed amendments will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature and primarily 
cover the review, distribution, and/or approval function performed 
for items identified in existing Technical Specifications. The 
quality level of the future reviews will not decrease and the 
ability of Duke to identify the possibility for the occurrence of 
new or different kinds of accidents prior to implementation will be 
maintained. Of specific interest in the consideration of Standard #2 
is the review of proposed tests and experiments which affect station 
nuclear safety and are not addressed in the FSAR or Technical 
Specifications. The Technical Specifications required reviews of 
these tests and experiments are not being proposed for removal by 
these requested amendments. Only the organizational unit conducting 
the review of proposed tests and experiments is being changed by the 
requested amendments. The PORC, instead of the Station Manager, is 
being assigned the responsibility for conducting the reviews of 
proposed tests and experiments in the future. It is believed that 
the combined expertise of the PORC membership will enhance Duke's 
ability to identify potential situations which could possibly 
involve a new, or different, kind of accident.
    Standard #3. The proposed amendments will not involve a 
significant reduction in any margin of safety.
    The changes contained in the requested amendments are 
administrative in nature and do not impact the design capabilities 
or operation of any plant structures, systems, or components. There 
will be no reduction in margin of safety as a result of implementing 
these requested amendments. Impact upon margin of safety is a 
consideration primarily included in the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation 
process conducted for station procedures, procedure changes, and 
nuclear station modifications. The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation process 
is conducted under the auspices of the Duke Qualified Reviewer 
Program and is not affected by these requested amendments. The 
impact on margin of safety for future Technical Specifications and 
Operating License changes will be reviewed by the PORC, but these 
reviews will be equivalent in quality to the reviews presently 
conducted by the Qualified Reviewers.

    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 
amendments requested involve no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-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 amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves 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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D22, 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 December 18, 1995, 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 

[[Page 58111]]
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.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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 amendment.
    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, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above 
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice 
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the 
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator 
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following 
message addressed to Herbert N. Berkow: petitioner's name and telephone 
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Mr. Albert Carr, 
Duke Power Company, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 
28242, 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 January 12, 1995, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 29, 1995, 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-28605 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P