[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67717-67718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32502]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Duke Energy Corporation; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 
3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    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 Energy Corporation (the 
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 
3, respectively, located in Oconee County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would amend the Oconee Facility Operating 
Licenses for Units 1, 2, and 3 to revise the Oconee Technical 
Specifications (TS) to be consistent with the Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications (ITS) conveyed by NUREG-1430, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants,'' Revision 1, dated 
April 1995.
    The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application 
for amendments dated October 28, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated 
March 26, May 20, July 29, August 13, October 1, October 21, October 
28, and November 23, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of the TS. The 
Commission's ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788, February 6, 
1987), and later the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (Final Policy 
Statement) (58 FR 39132, July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To 
facilitate the development of individual improved TS, each reactor 
vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS 
(STS). For Babcock and Wilcox plants, the STS are published as NUREG-
1430, and this document was the basis for the new Oconee Units 1, 2, 
and 3, TS. The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed 
the STS and made note of the safety merits of the STS and indicated its 
support of conversion to the STS by operating plants.

Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1430 and on 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to 
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TS. Emphasis 
is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and 
understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to 
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each 
specification. In addition to NUREG-1430, portions of the existing TS 
were also used as the basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique 
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed 
at length with the licensee.
    The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four 
general categories, as follows:
    1. Nontechnical (administrative) changes, which were intended to 
make the ITS easier to use. They are purely editorial in nature or 
involve the movement or reformatting of requirements without affecting 
technical content. Every section of the Oconee TS has undergone these 
types of changes. In order to ensure consistency, the NRC staff and the 
licensee have used NUREG-1430 as guidance to reformat and make other 
administrative changes.
    2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in 
the existing Oconee TS. The TS that are being relocated to licensee-
controlled documents are not required to be in the TS under 10 CFR 
50.36 requirements. They are not needed to obviate the possibility that 
an abnormal situation or event will give rise to an immediate threat to 
public health and safety. The NRC staff has concluded that appropriate 
controls have been established for all of the current specifications, 
information, and requirements that are being moved to licensee-
controlled documents. In general, the proposed relocation of items in 
the Oconee TS to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, appropriate 
plant-specific programs, procedures, and ITS Bases follows the guidance 
of NUREG-1430. Once these items have been relocated by removing them 
from the TS to licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise 
them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC staff-approved 
control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural means to 
control changes.
    3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed Oconee 
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding 
requirements in the current Oconee TS, or are additional restrictions 
that are not in the existing Oconee TS, but are contained in NUREG-
1430. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a 
limiting condition for operation on plant equipment that is not 
required by the present TS to be operable; more restrictive 
requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive 
surveillance requirements.
    4. Less restrictive requirements, which are relaxations of 
corresponding requirements in the existing Oconee TS that provide 
little or no safety benefit and place unnecessary burdens on the 
licensee. These relaxations were the result of generic NRC actions or 
other analyses. They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for 
Oconee and will be described in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be 
issued in support of the license amendments.
    In addition to the changes previously described, the licensee 
proposed certain changes to the existing TS that deviated from the STS 
in NUREG-1430. These additional proposed changes are described in the 
licensee's application and in the staff's Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity 
for a Hearing (62 FR 64405, dated December 5, 1997). Where these 
changes represent a change to the current licensing basis for Oconee, 
they have been justified on a case-by-case basis and will be described 
in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be issued in support of the license 
amendments.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents. Details of the staff's evaluation are provided in the safety 
evaluation accompanying the license amendments for the conversion.
    Changes that are administrative in nature have been found to have 
no effect on the technical content of the TS, and are acceptable. The 
increased clarity

[[Page 67718]]

and understanding these changes bring to the TS are expected to improve 
the operator's control of the plant in normal and accident conditions.
    Relocation of requirements to licensee-controlled documents does 
not change the requirements themselves. Future changes to these 
requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which ensures continued maintenance of 
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in 
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1430 and the Final Policy 
Statement, and, therefore, are acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
be acceptable and are likely to enhance the safety of plant operations.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no 
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burdens on the licensee, their 
removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations 
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were 
the result of a generic NRC action. Generic relaxations contained in 
NUREG-1430, as well as proposed deviations from NUREG-1430, have also 
been reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revision to the TS was found to provide 
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided so that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    The proposed revision to the TS will not increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant 
increase in the allowable occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has 
no other nonradiological environmental impact.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny 
the application (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Such action 
would not reduce the environmental impacts of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously 
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the 
operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, dated March 
1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on November 30, 1998, the 
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Virgil R. Autry 
of the Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department of Health and 
Environmental Control, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated October 28, 1997, as supplemented by letters 
dated March 26, May 20, July 29, August 13, October 1, October 21, 
October 28, and November 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South 
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd Day of December 1998.

    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. 98-32502 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P