Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices 35293

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370]

Duke Energy Corporation; Notice of

Consideration of Issuances 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–9

and NPF–17 issued to Duke Energy

Corporation (the licensee) for operation

of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1

and 2, located in Mecklenburg County,

North Carolina.

The proposed amendments would

revise Figure 5.1–1 of the Technical

Specifications (TS) to show the location

of the new meteorological tower. The

proposed TS change does not change

the related TS Section 5.1.1.

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:

1. Does the change involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

No. The proposed change involves the

location of the meteorological tower.

The meteorological tower is mainly

used for post-accident radiological

release assessment and does not impact

the initiation or mitigation of previously

analyzed accidents. No change in

routine or accident radioactive release

diffusion estimate methods is made. The

new location is approximately twice as

far as the old location from the reactor

buildings. Within a radius of 60 meters

of the new location, there is no

significant structure that the tower can

reach if it falls down. A fall of the tower

due to natural or man-made causes will

not adversely affect Category I structures

such as the reactor buildings, auxiliary

building, spent fuel pool buildings,

diesel generator buildings, and control

room. These structures have been

analyzed for effect from tornado

missiles comparable to or more severe

than those possibly generated from a

failed tower. The results of these

analyses showed that no safety limit

was exceeded due to tornado missiles.

The new location and tower do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the change create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

No. The proposed change involves the

location of the meteorological tower.

The new tower, like the old one, is

separated from other systems in the

plant. No physical changes to other

systems or changes in methods

governing normal plant operation are

made as a result of this proposed

change. Failure of the new tower due to

either man-made or natural causes

should not create any new effects than

those described above.

The new location and tower do not

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

3. Does this change involve a

significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

No. The proposed change involves the

location of the meteorological tower.

The proposed change does not involve

any physical change to other systems in

the plant and has no impact on any

safety analysis assumptions. Therefore,

this change does not involve a 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 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

amendments 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

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 29, 1998, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendments 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 at the local public

document room located at the J. Murrey

Atkins Library, University of North

Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University

City Boulevard, Charlotte, North

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
35294 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 124 / Monday, June 29, 1998 / Notices

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

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 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 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.

Albert Carr, 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 March 3, 1998, as

supplemented by letters dated April 24

and May 7, 1998, which are 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 J. Murrey

Atkins Library, University of North

Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University

City Boulevard, Charlotte, North

Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank Rinaldi,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17217 Filed 6–26–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–295 and 50–304]

Commonwealth Edison Company; Zion

Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. DRP–39 and DRP–48,

issued to Commonwealth Edison

Company (ComEd, the licensee), for

operation of the Zion Nuclear Power

Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Lake

County, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By letter dated March 12, 1998,

ComEd requested an exemption from

certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.71,

‘‘Maintenance of records, making of

reports,’’ for Zion Nuclear Power

Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed

action would permit ComEd to extend

the time interval for the submittal of

Zion Station’s Updated Final Safety

Analysis Report (UFSAR). The next

Zion Nuclear Power Station Final Safety

Analysis Report (FSAR) update is due in

July 1998. The proposed exemption

would allow this date to be extended to

December 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34(b) each

application for a license to operate a

facility shall include an FSAR. This

report shall include information that

describes the facility, presents the

design bases and the limits on its

operation and presents a safety analysis

of the structure, systems and

components of the facility. This

information and description is needed

to permit understanding of the system

designs and their relationships to safety

evaluations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e) all light

water nuclear power reactors shall