[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24512-24514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11578]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, 50-287]


Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3; 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 Power Company (the licensee) 
for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 located 
in Seneca, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendments would add a License Condition to address a 
revision to the Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to clarify 
the main turbine-generated missile protection criteria. The licensee 
has determined that this clarification is necessary in order to resolve 
an unreviewed safety question (USQ) related to the design of certain 
portions of the low pressure service water system piping as it relates 
to the separation criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.115, Revision 1, and 
Section 3.5.1.3 of NUREG-0800.
    Oconee Unit 2 is currently in a forced outage for repairs on the 
High Pressure Injection System. It is the staff's position that a plant 
that is shut down may not restart if a USQ exists. The USQ associated 
with high trajectory turbine missiles was self-identified within the 
last 2 weeks as a result of engineering design reviews associated with 
the Oconee Service Water Project. Prior to the forced shutdown of Unit 
2, the licensee aggressively developed a proposed license amendment to 
resolve the issue. Therefore, the issue could not have been resolved 
prior to the shutdown and must be resolved on an exigent basis so that 
it does not delay

[[Page 24513]]

restart of Unit 2 once repairs to the high pressure injection system 
are completed.
    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 considerations, in that operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed license amendment proposes the use of less 
restrictive guidance with respect to application of the turbine 
missile design criterion. Oconee's current licensing basis is to 
protect ES [Emergency Safeguards] equipment against turbine missiles 
by use of shielding or separation. The proposed changes to the 
Oconee licensing basis would allow Oconee to use NRC approved 
methodology, as described in Regulatory Guide 1.115, Revision 1 and 
NUREG 0800 Revision 2 (for low trajectory turbine missiles) and 
NUREG 0800 Revision 2 (for high trajectory turbine missiles) in 
evaluating the credibility and probability of a turbine missile 
strike on ES equipment prior to imposing a separation or shielding 
design requirement. If the probability is sufficiently low of a 
turbine missile strike, then shielding or separation would not be 
required. Therefore, the separation and shielding design 
requirements would only be waived on equipment which has a very low 
probability of being struck by a turbine missile.
    Design to protect ES equipment against a turbine missile as 
described above is not an accident initiator. In addition, under 
this new license amendment, some ES equipment would be exempted from 
separation and shielding design requirements for turbine missiles. 
The basis for this exemption is that the probability of this 
equipment being hit by a turbine missile is very low as evaluated 
through NRC approved methods.
    Therefore, based on this analysis and the information presented 
in Attachment 2 [of the licensee's submittal], the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be 
significantly increased by the proposed change.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from the accidents previously evaluated?
    No. Design to protect ES equipment against a turbine missile as 
described above is not an accident initiator.
    Therefore, based on this analysis and the supporting information 
in Attachment 2, no new failure modes or credible accident scenarios 
are postulated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    No. Under this new license amendment, some ES equipment would be 
exempted from separation and shielding design requirements for 
turbine missiles. The basis for this exemption is that the 
probability of this equipment being hit by a turbine missile is very 
low as evaluated through NRC approved methods.
    Therefore, based on this analysis and the supporting information 
in Attachment 2, the margin of safety is not significantly reduced 
as a result of this proposed amendment.

    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 amendment 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 amendment before the expiration of 
the 14-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. 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 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications 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 6D22, Two White Flint 
North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 am to 4:15 
pm 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 June 9, 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 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

[[Page 24514]]

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 the amendment is 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 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, US Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 20555-0001, and to 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) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated April 29, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South 
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of April 1997.

    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. 97-11578 Filed 5-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P