[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