[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 166 (Friday, August 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51860-51862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21759]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-35 and Facility Operating License No. NPF-52 issued to Duke Energy 
Corporation, et al., (the licensee) for operation of the Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would temporarily revise Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.5.2 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS); TS 3.6.6 
Containment Spray System (CSS); TS 3.6.17 Containment Valve Injection 
Water System (CVIWS); TS 3.7.5 Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System; TS 
3.7.7 Component Cooling Water (CCW)

[[Page 51861]]

System; TS 3.7.8 Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS); TS 3.7.10 Control 
Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS); TS 3.7.12 Auxiliary Building 
Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES), and TS 3.8.1 AC Sources--
Operating, for Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2. The proposed TS changes 
will allow the ``A'' and ``B'' Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS) 
headers to be sequentially taken out of service for 12 days each for 
cleaning and pipe replacement. This cleaning and pipe replacement is 
scheduled to occur while Unit 1 will be in refueling outage in fall 
2000 and Unit 2 will be at power operation.
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination 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:

    Catawba is currently pursuing a project to clean and modify the 
nuclear service water system (NSWS) piping for both units. This is 
necessary to maintain the long-term reliability of the NSWS. This 
project represents a challenge in that it is not possible to 
isolate, drain, clean, restore and test the NSWS during the current 
TS action time frame. The purpose of this submittal is to request a 
temporary change to the existing TS for the systems affected during 
the project. This will permit an orderly and efficient project 
implementation during the refueling outage 1EOC12 and during power 
operation on Unit 2. The specific change is to extend the TS 
required action time from 72 hours to 288 hours.
    The following discussion is a summary of the evaluation of the 
changes contained in this proposed amendment against the 10 CFR 
50.92(c) requirements to demonstrate that all three standards are 
satisfied. A no significant hazards consideration is indicated if 
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.

First Standard

    The cleaning and modification project for the NSWS and proposed 
TS changes have been evaluated to assess their impact on normal 
operation of the systems affected and to ensure that the design 
basis safety functions are preserved. During the cleaning the other 
NSWS train will be operable and no major maintenance or testing will 
be done on the operable train. The operable train will be protected 
to help ensure it would be available if called upon.
    This cleaning and modification project will increase the 
available flow margin in the NSWS system. This increase in margin 
will ensure that each NSWS header has an increased flow margin to 
enhance its ability to comply with design basis requirements. This 
will allow Catawba to reduce the amount of unavailability for the 
NSWS system in the future and increase the overall reliability for 
many years.
    Currently, Catawba periodically performs flow tests to ensure 
that the required design flow is maintained from the NSWS to the AFW 
system. This has resulted in an increase in the unavailability of 
the AFW system. By completing this project, Catawba will be able to 
increase the NSWS flow margin for the AFW system and reduce the 
amount of flow testing that will be required in the future. This 
will result in a decrease in the unavailability of the AFW system 
and improvement in its overall reliability. This will result in an 
improved safety margin for Catawba.
    The increased NSWS train unavailability that results from the 
implementation of this amendment does involve a one time increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
during the time frame the NSWS headers are out of service for 
cleaning. Considering this small time frame for each NSWS train 
outage with the increased reliability and the decrease in 
unavailability of the NSWS and AFW systems in the future because of 
this project, the overall probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated will decrease.

Second Standard

    Implementation of this amendment would not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed temporary TS changes do not 
affect the basic operation of the ECCS, CSS, CVIWS, NSWS, AFW, CCW, 
CRAVS, ABFVES, or EDG systems. The only change is increasing the 
required action time frame from 72 hours to 288 hours (ECCS, CSS, 
NSWS, AFW, CCW, and EDG) or from 168 hours to 288 hours (CVIWS, 
CRAVS and ABFVES). During the project, contingency measures will be 
in place to provide additional assurance that the affected systems 
will be able to complete their design functions.
    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.

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 temporary TS amendment. During the outages for each NSWS 
header, the affected systems will still be capable of performing 
their required functions and contingency measures will be in place 
to provide additional assurance that the affected systems will be 
maintained in a condition to be able to complete their design 
functions. Therefore, there is not a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    Based upon the preceding discussion, Duke Energy has concluded 
that the proposed amendment for a temporary one time TS change 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 30 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 30-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 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after 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

[[Page 51862]]

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 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 September 25, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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, 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 Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn , Legal Department 
(PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, 
North Carolina 28201-1006, 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 May 25, 2000, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 31, August 8, and August 17, 2000, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and 
accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading 
Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of August 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
 Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management.
[FR Doc. 00-21759 Filed 8-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P