[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56600-56602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24059]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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

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

    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.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.9.a as it relates to the annual 
test of the Keowee Hydro Units (KHUs) by adding a Note stating: ``The 
upper limits on frequency and voltage are not required to be met until 
the NRC issues an amendment that removes this Note (license amendment 
request to be submitted no later than April 5, 2001).''
    The present annual SR requires verification on an actual or 
simulated emergency actuation signal that each KHU automatically starts 
and achieves an output frequency  57 Hertz (Hz) and 
 63 Hz and an output voltage  13.5 kilo-volts 
(kV) and  14.49 kV in  23 seconds. Currently, 
when a KHU is started, it reaches rated frequency and voltage within 
the required 23 seconds. However, due to the physical characteristics 
of the KHU, its speed continues to increase, causing the frequency to 
exceed the limits specified in SR 3.8.1.9.a for a short period of time. 
Following this brief overshoot, the frequency returns to within the 
limits specified in SR 3.8.1.9.a. This is consistent with the way the 
KHUs have been operated since initial licensing and complies with the 
licensee's interpretation of the SR.
    As a result of recent discussions with the NRC, it became clear 
that interpretation differences existed between the staff and the 
licensee concerning this SR. The staff interpreted the SR to imply that 
the limits on frequency and voltage constitute upper and lower limits 
for operation of the KHUs. In a telephone conference call on September 
5, 2000, the staff informed the licensee of this interpretation, and 
that Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, were not in compliance 
with TS 3.8.1 because the frequency briefly exceeded the upper limit 
specified in the SR in response to an actual or simulated emergency 
actuation signal. The licensee stated that this would require declaring 
the KHUs inoperable, entry into TS 3.0.3, and shutdown of the three 
units. Therefore, the licensee requested that a Notice of Enforcement 
Discretion (NOED) be granted pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding 
exercise of 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 until such time as the staff approves an amendment modifying 
the SR, which was submitted on September 7, 2000. The staff granted the 
NOED on September 5, 2000, and, as a result, is processing this 
amendment under exigent circumstances in accordance with the NRC's 
policy regarding exercising of enforcement discretion.
    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

[[Page 56601]]

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:

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, Duke Power Company (Duke) has made the 
determination that this amendment request involves a No Significant 
Hazards Consideration by applying the standards established by the 
NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.92. This ensures 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 License Amendment Request (LAR) involves adding a note 
to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.9[.a] to waive the 
surveillance requirements associated with the upper limits for KHU 
voltage and frequency. The waiver of these requirements will allow 
Duke to avoid an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee 
units, and the potential safety consequences and operational risks 
associated with that action. It will also provide an opportunity for 
Duke to work with the NRC to resolve any technical concerns.
    This LAR involves an interpretation issue, rather than the 
inability of the KHU to perform its intended safety function.
    Waiving the requirements to meet the upper voltage and frequency 
limits associated with SR 3.8.1.9.a does not involve: (1) A physical 
alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or 
different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new 
or different manner; or (4) a change to any set points for 
parameters which initiate protective or mitigative action.
    There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, 
radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main 
steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new 
radiological release pathways are created.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    No. The LAR involves adding a note to allow for a temporary 
waiver of [the upper voltage and frequency limits of] SR 3.8.1.9.a 
associated with the KHUs.
    Waiver of this surveillance requirement does not involve a 
physical effect on the unit, nor is there any increased risk of a 
unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or credible 
accident scenarios are postulated from this activity.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    No. The LAR involves adding a note to allow waiver of the 
requirements to meet [the upper voltage and frequency limits of] SR 
3.8.1.9.a. Temporarily waiving the requirement to meet this [upper 
voltage and frequency limits of this] SR will allow Duke to avoid an 
unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units and the 
potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with 
that action. It will also allow Duke the opportunity to work with 
the NRC to resolve any technical concerns.
    Temporarily waiving the requirement to meet the upper voltage 
and frequency limits associated with SR 3.8.1.9.a does not involve: 
(1) A physical alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation 
of new or different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment 
in a new or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for 
parameters which initiate protective or mitigative action; or (5) 
any impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits.
    Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    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 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 October 19, 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 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

[[Page 56602]]

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, 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 Anne W. Cottington, Winston and 
Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 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 September 7, 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 12th day of September 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David E. LaBarge,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-24059 Filed 9-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P