[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 23306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11248]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Notice of Partial Denial of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity for Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has 
partially denied a request by Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee) 
for amendments to Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-
52, issued to the licensee for operation of the Catawba Nuclear 
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina. 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments was published in the 
Federal Register on February 11, 1998 (63 FR 6983).
    The licensee's application of December 18, 1997, as revised by a 
letter dated January 28, 1998, proposed numerous changes to the FOLs. 
The licensee proposed to revise the FOLs to delete license conditions 
that have been fulfilled, to update information to reflect current 
plant status and regulatory requirements, and to make other 
correctional, clarifying, or editorial changes. The staff issued 
amendments to the FOLs, accepting most of the proposed changes. The 
balance of the proposed changes were not accepted by the staff. The 
changes that were not accepted are summarized as follows:
    1. For the license conditions that have been fulfilled, and the 
exemptions that are no longer needed, the licensee proposed to have 
them deleted entirely from the FOLs. The staff, however, believes that 
indications should be left in the FOLs to provide easy reference to 
these past license conditions and exemptions. The staff preserved the 
license condition and exemption numbers with the word ``Deleted'' 
following in parentheses. Further, the staff did not renumber those 
license conditions still in existence. Hence, the licensee's proposed 
changes are partially denied.
    2. The licensee proposed to modify the statement that described the 
construction status as ``has been substantially completed'' to ``was 
completed.'' The staff surveyed FOLs granted to other facilities, and 
found that the expression ``has been substantially'' is used in each 
FOL, and its meaning is thus established by such repeated use. The 
licensee has not provided any reason for the proposed change, other 
than stating that this is an administrative change to ``update the FOL 
to the current historical status.'' Thus, this proposed change is 
denied.
    3. The licensee proposed to delete the reference to the 
Environmental Report, as supplemented, from the FOLs. The licensee gave 
no justification for deleting the reference to the Environmental 
Report, which has been required by the National Environmental Policy 
Act and 10 CFR Part 51, and was a significant part of the basis for 
granting the FOLs. This proposed change is denied.
    4. The licensee proposed to delete any reference to revision 
numbers to security plans since these security plans are subject to 
change periodically. However, 10 CFR 50.54(p) has set forth the 
conditions under which the licensee may make changes without NRC 
approval, such that the specified revision numbers do not prevent the 
licensee from making such changes. Hence, the licensee's proposal to 
omit revision numbers and dates is denied.
    The NRC staff has concluded that the licensee's proposed changes 
described above are unacceptable and are denied. The licensee was 
notified of the staff's denial by letter dated April 23, 1998.
    By May 28, 1998, the licensee may demand a hearing with respect to 
the denial described above. Any person whose interest may be affected 
by this proceeding may file a written request for leave to intervene.
    A request for hearing or 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 any 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, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 
South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28242, attorney for the 
licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the 
application for amendments dated December 17, 1997, and (2) the 
Commission's letter to the licensee dated April 23, 1998, 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 29730.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of April 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-11248 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P