[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33097-33099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16019]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


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. 
DPR-38 and DPR-55, issued to the Duke Energy Corporation (the 
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 3, 
respectively, located in Seneca, South Carolina.
    If approved, the proposed amendments would amend the Oconee Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to allow continued 
operation with certain steam generator tubes that exceed their repair 
limit as a result of tube end anomalies (TEAs). These tubes would be 
temporarily exempt from the requirement for sleeving, rerolling, or 
removal from service until repaired during the next scheduled refueling 
outages for the respective unit or plant conditions that result in an 
extended cold shutdown of greater than 7 days.
    Oconee TS Section 4.17.2, Steam Generator Tubing Surveillance 
Acceptance Criteria, requires that the steam generators be operable and 
all tubes that are examined and found to exceed their repair criteria 
be repaired by sleeving or rerolling, or removed from service. During 
the recent Unit 2 refueling outage, several indications of TEAs were 
found and repaired. As a result, a detailed reanalysis of the Unit 1 
and 3 steam generator tube surveillance data that was obtained during 
the previous refueling outages for each unit was conducted. This 
reanalysis determined that 372

[[Page 33098]]

indications out of 2951 TEAs not previously repaired for Unit I and 61 
out of 66 TEAs not previously repaired on Unit 3 extended beyond the 
upper surface of the tubesheet clad. These indications, if they had 
been found during the respective refueling outages, would have met the 
criteria for repair during the outage.
    When these findings were discussed with the staff on June 3, 1998, 
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion was issued verbally on June 3, 1998, 
to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with TS 4.17.2 for the 
Unit 1 and Unit 3 steam generator tubes that exceed the repair limit as 
a result of TEAs for the period from 12:25 p.m. on June 3, 1998, until 
issuance of the related amendments. The request for license amendments 
was submitted by letter dated June 4, 1998. Since the proposed 
amendments are designed to complete the review process and implement 
the proposed TS changes, pursuant to the NRC's policy regarding 
exercising 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 for the period until the issuance of the related TS 
amendments, these circumstances require that the amendments be 
processed under exigent circumstances.
    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 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:

[This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards in 10 
CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant hazards, 
in 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:
    This evaluation addresses the potential effects of a missed 
surveillance and repair opportunity for steam generator tubes. As 
described in the technical justification, operating with some steam 
generator tubes with TEAs and repairable indications in Units 1 and 
3 does not increase the probability of an accident evaluated in the 
SAR [Safety Analysis Report] because this condition is not an 
accident initiator. There is no physical change to the plant SSCs 
[structures, systems, components] or operating procedures. Neither 
electrical power systems, nor important to safety mechanical SSCs 
will be adversely affected. The steam generators have been evaluated 
as operable for normal and accident conditions. There are no 
shutdown margin, reactivity management, or fuel integrity concerns.
    This activity will not adversely affect the ability to mitigate 
any SAR described accidents. The total evaluated main steam line 
break leakage from the areas evaluated is 0.023 gpm [gallons per 
minute] for Unit 1 which is the limiting unit. The resulting leakage 
was considerably less than that assumed in the off site dose 
analysis of 0.7 gpm for each unit. Therefore both Units 1 and 3 met 
the MSLB [Main Steamline Break] leakage requirements for steam 
generator integrity with no compensatory actions required. There is 
no adverse impact on containment integrity, radiological release 
pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main steam relief valve 
setpoints, or radwaste systems.
    There is no increase in accident initiation likelihood or 
consequences, therefore analyzed accident scenarios are not 
impacted.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any kind of accident previously evaluated:
    There is no increased risk of unit trip, or challenge to the RPS 
[Reactor Protection System] or other safety systems. There is no 
physical effect on the plant, i.e., none on RCS [Reactor Coolant 
System] temperature, boron concentration, control rod manipulations, 
core configuration changes, and no impact on nuclear 
instrumentation. There is no increased risk of a reactivity 
excursion. No new failure modes or credible accident scenarios are 
postulated from this activity. The MSLB scenario has been evaluated 
and the potential for damage to the steam generator tubes is not 
increased.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[:]
    No function of any important to safety SSC will be adversely 
affected or degraded as a result of continued operation. No safety 
parameters, setpoints, or design limits are changed. There is no 
adverse impact to the nuclear fuel, cladding, RCS, or required 
containment systems. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in 
the bases to any Technical Specifications are not reduced as a 
result of this change.
    Duke [Duke Energy Corporation] has concluded, based on the 
above, that there are no significant hazards considerations involved 
in this amendment request.

    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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 14-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. 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 16, 1998, 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

[[Page 33099]]

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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South Broad Street, Walhalla, 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 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 amendments 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 amendments are 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 
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, 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. J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston 
and Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated June 4, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South 
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David E. LaBarge,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-16019 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P