[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45870-45872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22978]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370]


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. 
NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee), for 
operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

[[Page 45871]]

    The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 4.6.5.1.b.3 regarding surveillance requirements for the ice 
condenser ice bed. One requirement specifies that a visual inspection 
of flow passages be performed once per 9 months to ensure that there is 
no significant ice and frost accumulation (less than 0.38 inch). The 
licensee proposed to relax the visual inspection frequency of the lower 
plenum support structures and turning vanes to once per 18 months. The 
remaining parts of the ice condenser will continue to be inspected at 
9-month intervals.
    The licensee requested approval on an exigent basis pursuant to its 
request for enforcement discretion for McGuire, Units 1 and 2. The 
staff verbally granted the enforcement discretion on August 13, 1998, 
and affirmed it by a subsequent notice of enforcement discretion (NOED) 
letter dated August 14, 1998. The NOED stated that the enforcement 
discretion is in effect until the issuance of related amendments to 
revise the subject TS. Consistent with its procedure, the staff intends 
to issue amendments to revise the problematic TS within 4 weeks of the 
NOED letter. This issuance schedule would not be accommodated by the 
normal 30-day notice to the public.
    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 amendment 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:

First Standard

    Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. Approval of this amendment will have no 
significant effect on accident probabilities or consequences. The 
ice condenser is not an accident initiating system; therefore, there 
will be no impact on any accident probabilities by the approval of 
this amendment. Each unit's ice condenser is currently fully capable 
of meeting its design basis accident mitigating function. Therefore, 
there will be no impact on any accident consequences.

Second Standard

    Implementation of this amendment would not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. No new accident causal mechanisms are created 
as a result of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes 
are being made to the plant which will introduce any new accident 
causal mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact any plant 
systems that are accident initiators, since the ice condenser is an 
accident mitigating system.

Third Standard

    Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. Margin of safety is related to the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform 
their design functions during and following an accident situation. 
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant 
system, and the containment system. The performance of these fission 
product barriers will not be impacted by implementation of this 
proposed amendment. The ice condenser for each unit is already 
capable of performing as designed. Operating experience has shown 
that the performance of the ice condenser would not be adversely 
impacted by extending the frequency of these SRs [surveillance 
requirements] to an 18-month interval. No safety margins will be 
impacted.
    Based upon the preceding analysis, Duke Energy [Corporation] has 
concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
hazards consideration.

    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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve 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 6D59, 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's Public Document 
Room, the Gellman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By September 28, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a 
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments 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 J. Murrey Atkins Library, University of 
North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, 
North 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

[[Page 45872]]

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 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 shal be limited to matters within the 
scope of the amendments 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 amendments are 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 
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendments.
    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 amendments.
    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. Albert Carr, Duke Energy 
Corporation, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated August 14, 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 J. Murrey Atkins Library, 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City 
Boulevard, Charlotte, North Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of August 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank Rinaldi,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-22978 Filed 8-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P