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

Federal RegisterDec 16, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-413 and 50-414]

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-35 and NPF-52 issued to Duke Energy Corporation for operation of

the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in

York County, South Carolina.

The proposed amendments would modify Section 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel

Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' of the joint Improved Technical

Specifications (ITS). Specifically, the amendments would correct the

lube oil inventory requirement from a range of 575-600 gallons to a

range of 375-400 gallons. The current range was erroneously specified

based on incorrect information in the Catawba Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report.

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.

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 amendments 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

Diesel Generator Lube Oil System is not an accident initiating

system; therefore, there will be no impact on any accident

probabilities by the approval of this amendment. The design of the

system is not being modified by this proposed amendment. The

amendment merely aligns ITS requirements with the existing design

and function of the system. 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 Diesel Generator

Lube Oil System 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 Diesel Generator Lube Oil System is already

capable of performing as designed. No safety margin will be

impacted.

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 amendments 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 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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing

after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to

[[Page 69329]]

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 German Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By January 15, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a hearing

with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility

operating licenses 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 German

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. 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 preferring 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 preferring 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

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 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 German 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. Paul R. Newton, Legal Department

(PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte,

North Carolina, 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 amendments dated December 7, 1998, which is available

for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the

German 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.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 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. 98-33256 Filed 12-15-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.