[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6784-6786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3270]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 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 the 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 amend the Oconee Nuclear 
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to revise the 
present wording used to specify refueling outage surveillances to 
indicate that the surveillances are to be performed on an 18-month 
frequency.
    The original Oconee TS required that certain surveillances be 
performed annually and, therefore, were not constrained to performance 
with a unit in the refueling condition. As a result, the licensee has 
not interpreted a surveillance that is specified to be performed at 
refueling outage frequency as meaning that the unit must be in a 
refueling outage to satisfy the requirement. Therefore, some 
surveillances specified at a refueling outage frequency were performed 
at times other than during a refueling outage. In discussions with the 
NRC staff on January 29, 1998, the licensee was informed of the staff's 
interpretation of Oconee's TS that concluded any surveillance that was 
specified to be performed during refueling outages must be performed 
with the unit in a refueling outage. Thus, any surveillances performed 
at power, in past forced outages, or during planned shutdowns, would 
not satisfy the TS requirements. The licensee then immediately began to 
evaluate the impact of the staff's literal interpretation of the TS. On 
January 30, 1998, the licensee confirmed that certain surveillances had 
been performed at times other than during a refueling outage and that 
implementation of the staff's interpretation of the surveillances 
designated in the TS as ``refueling outage'' would result in exceeding 
the time constraints allowed in the TS and, in accordance with TS 3.0, 
would result in the forced shutdown of Units 2 and 3 and interfere with 
the planned startup of Unit 1. However, the licensee

[[Page 6785]]

determined that all surveillances that are presently required to be 
performed during refueling outages have been performed within the 
required interval (22.5 months), even though some have been performed 
with the unit in a condition other than a refueling outage. Thus, the 
surveillance interval requirements have been satisfied.
    When these findings were discussed with the staff on January 30, 
1998, a Notice of Enforcement Discretion was issued verbally on January 
30, 1998, to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 3.0 
for these surveillances for the period from 3:30 p.m. on January 30, 
1998, until issuance of the related amendments. The request for license 
amendments was submitted by letter dated February 2, 1998. Since the 
proposed amendments are designed to complete the review process and 
implement the proposed 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 a related TS amendment, 
these circumstances require that the amendments be processed under 
exigent circumstances.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, 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 amendment would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed change will revise the surveillance 
requirements for selected surveillances which have a refueling 
outage surveillance frequency with a maximum interval of 22 months 
and 15 days. The proposed change will replace the refueling outage 
requirement with a comparable requirement to perform the 
surveillance every 18 months which has a maximum interval of 22 
months and 15 days. The proposed change does not increase the 
maximum interval between surveillances and does not change any 
surveillance acceptance criteria. Thus, the probability and 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be 
significant[ly] increased.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from the accidents previously evaluated?
    No. Since the proposed change does not increase the maximum 
interval between surveillances and does not change any surveillance 
acceptance criteria, a new or different kind of accident from the 
accidents which were previously evaluated will not occur.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    No. The margin of safety will not be significantly reduced by 
this amendment request because the maximum interval between the 
surveillances and the surveillance acceptance criteria are not 
changed. Thus, the operability of the plant equipment and systems 
will be verified within the same surveillance interval and to the 
same acceptance criteria.
    Duke has concluded based on the above information that there are 
no significant hazards 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 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 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 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 March 12, 1998, 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

[[Page 6786]]

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 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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, 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)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 2, 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 5th day of February 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. 98-3270 Filed 2-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P