Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29759

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David C. Trimble,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14391 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 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 (the licensee), for operation

of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 2, located in York County, South

Carolina.

The proposed amendments would

revise Surveillance Requirement Section

4.4.3.3 of the Technical Specifications.

Section 4.4.3.3 currently requires that

the emergency power supply for the

pressurizer heaters be demonstrated

OPERABLE at least once per 18 months

by manually transferring power from the

normal to the emergency power supply.

The licensee proposed to delete the

‘‘manual’’ requirement because the

power supply transfer at the unit was

designed to be automatic. The proposed

requirement is to verify that required

pressurizer heaters are capable of being

powered from an emergency power

supply once per 18 months.

The licensee requested approval on an

exigent basis pursuant to its request for

enforcement discretion. The staff

verbally granted the enforcement

discretion on May 22, 1998, and

affirmed it by a subsequent notice of

enforcement discretion (NOED) letter

dated May 26, 1998. The NOED stated

that the enforcement discretion is in

effect until the issuance of amendments

to revise Section 4.4.3.3. The staff

intends to issue such an amendment

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. Changing the

requirements of SR [surveillance

requirement] 4.4.3.3 as previously described

will not have any impact on accident

probabilities. It merely makes the TS

[Technical Specification] requirement

consistent with the design of the pressurizer

heaters and the normal and emergency power

supply arrangement. In addition, no impact

on accident consequences will occur, since

the design function of the pressurizer heaters

will be maintained and the heaters will be

tested according to the manner in which they

were designed.

Second Standard

Implementation of this amendment would

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated. Changing the

requirements of SR 4.4.3.3 will make the SR

consistent with the actual design of the

equipment it governs. No design changes are

being made to the plant and no changes are

being made to the manner in which the plant

is operated or tested. Therefore, no new

accident causal mechanisms are created.

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 the

fission product barriers will not be impacted

by implementation of this proposed

amendment. The design function of the

affected pressurizer heaters and power

supplies will not be affected. Therefore, no

safety margin will be adversely 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 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 July 1, 1998, 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
29760 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

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 York

County Library, 138 East Black Street,

Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730. 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

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 Mr.

Paul R. Newton, Legal Department

(PB05E), 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)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated May 22, 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

York County Library, 138 East Black

Street, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of May 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. 98–14386 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–302]

In the Matter of Florida Power

Corporation Crystal River Unit 3;

Confirmatory Order Modifying License

Effective Immediately

I

Florida Power Corporation, (FPC or

the Licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License No. DPR–72, which

authorizes operation of Crystal River

Unit 3 located in Citrus County, Florida.

II

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been

concerned that Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire

barrier systems installed by licensees

may not provide the level of fire

endurance intended and that licensees

that use Thermo-Lag 330–1 fire barriers

may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. During the 1992 to 1994

timeframe, the NRC staff issued Generic

Letter (GL) 92–08, ‘‘Thermo-Lag 330–1

Fire Barriers’’ and subsequent requests

for additional information that

requested licensees to submit plans and

schedules for resolving the Thermo-Lag

issue. The NRC staff has obtained and

reviewed all licensees’ corrective plans

and schedules. The staff is concerned

that some licensees may not be making

adequate progress toward resolving the

plant-specific issues, and that some

implementation schedules may be either

too tenuous or too protracted. For