Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Notices 38433

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Brenda Jo. Shelton,

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief

Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–18959 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–269, 50–270, 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,

DPR–47, and DPR–55, issued to Duke

Energy Corporation (the licensee), for

operation of the Oconee Nuclear

Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively,

located in Seneca, South Carolina.

If approved, the proposed

amendments would allow temporary

noncompliance with the Penetration

Room Ventilation System air flow

surveillance requirements of Technical

Specification (TS) 4.5.4.1.b.1 until

modifications can be completed to

support testing in accordance with

ANSI Standard N510–1975, as required

by the TSs. These modifications are

scheduled to be completed on all three

units by August 30, 1998.

Oconee TS 4.5.4.1.b.1 requires that

every 18 months the Penetration Room

Ventilation System fans be

demonstrated to operate at design flow

(+/-10 percent) when tested in

accordance with ANSI Standard N510–

1975. ANSI Standard N510–1975

requires that a pitot tube velocitytraverse method be used in accordance

with Section 9 of the American

Conference of Government Industrial

Hygienists Industrial Ventilation

requirements. The flow measurement

method that has been used since

original construction uses installed

orifice plates to measure the air flow.

However, during a Safety System

Engineering Inspection at Oconee for

the Control Room Ventilation System

(CRVS) and Penetration Room

Ventilation System (PRVS), the NRC

identified a violation that indicated that

the PRVS fans were not tested in

accordance with the TSs and ANSI

Standard N510–1975. This violation

was included in Inspection Report Nos.

50–269/98–03, 50–270/98–03, and 50–

287/09–03 dated May 4, 1998. By letter

dated June 4, 1998, the licensee denied

the violation based on a belief that the

use of the orifice plates met the

requirements of the TSs and the ANSI

standard. As part of the review of this

issue, the licensee conducted flow

measurement tests using a pitot tube

array and attempted (unsuccessfully) to

locate calibration data for the orifices.

The licensee was unable to develop an

alternate method to measure flow that

was reliable.

By letter dated July 6, 1998, the NRC

informed the licensee that its denial of

the violation was rejected.

Consequently, the licensee entered TS

3.0, which required that all three units

be in the hot shutdown condition

within 12 hours, and requested that a

Notice of Enforcement Discretion

(NOED) be granted. The NOED was

issued on July 8, 1998, and will be

effective until the proposed

amendments that were submitted on

July 8, 1998, are processed. Since the

proposed amendments are designed to

complete the review process and

implement the 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 amendments

would not:]

1. Involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated:

This proposed change does not increase

the probability of an accident evaluated in

the SAR [Safety Analysis Report] because:

This evaluation addresses the potential

impact of revising Technical Specification

4.5.4.1.b.1 to include a note to allow a

temporary noncompliance with this

surveillance requirement until August 30,

1998, to complete the necessary

modifications to enable flow testing in

accordance with ANSI N510–1975.

As described in the technical justification

(Attachment 3 [of the July 8, 1998,

submittal]), the use of orifice plates in the

Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 Penetration Room

Ventilation Systems (PRVSs) to measure the

flow from the PRVS fans, in lieu of ANSI

N510–1975 requirements, does not increase

the probability of an accident evaluated in

the SAR because this condition is not an

accident initiator. There is no physical

change to any plant structures, systems, or

components (SSCs) or operating procedures.

Neither electrical power systems, nor

important to safety mechanical SSCs will be

adversely affected. The PRVS has been

evaluated as operable for normal and

accident conditions. There are no shutdown

margin, reactivity management, or fuel

integrity concerns. There is no increase in

accident initiation likelihood, therefore

analyzed accident scenarios are not

impacted.

This proposed change does not increase

the probability of a malfunction of equipment

important to safety evaluated in the SAR

because:

As described in the technical justification,

the use of orifice plates which are currently

used in Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 to measure

the flow from the PRVS fans, in lieu of ANSI

N510–1975 requirements, does not increase

the probability of a malfunction of equipment

important to safety. This activity does not

physically change or modify any plant

system, structure, or component. The PRVS

is QA [quality assurance] condition 1 (QA–

1) and is required to filter reactor building

leakage which enters the East and West

Penetration Rooms. This activity does not

change any test procedures. Nothing is being

done to inhibit the integrity or function of the

PRVS. No valve manipulations, electrical

alignments, or system configurations are

required.

This change does not increase the

consequences of an accident evaluated in the

SAR because:

This activity will not adversely affect the

ability to mitigate any SAR described

accidents. The PRVS flow is within the

system design limits as measured by the

orifice plates. In addition, Duke [Duke Energy

Corporation] has performed bounding

analyses which demonstrate that the carbon

filter efficiency is still within the Technical

Specification limits at higher flow rates.

Therefore, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3 will meet

system design requirements for the PRVS.

There is no adverse impact on containment

integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel
38434 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Notices

design, filtration systems, main steam relief

valve setpoints, or radwaste systems.

This change does not increase the

consequences of a malfunction of equipment

important to safety evaluated in the SAR

because:

No safety related or important to safety

equipment necessary to place or maintain the

plant in safe shutdown condition will be

impacted by allowing a temporary

noncompliance with this surveillance

requirement until August 30, 1998, to

complete flow testing in accordance with

ANSI N510–1975. As described in the

technical justification, the use of orifice

plates which are currently used in Oconee

Units 1, 2, and 3 to measure the flow from

the PRVS fans, in lieu of ANSI N510-1975

requirements, does not increase the

consequences of a malfunction of equipment

important to safety. The PRVS flow is within

the system design limits as measured by the

orifice plates. In addition, Duke has

performed bounding analyses which

demonstrate that the carbon filter efficiency

is still within the Technical Specification

limits at higher flow rates. Therefore, Oconee

Units 1, 2, and 3 will meet system design

requirements for the PRVS. There is no

adverse impact on containment integrity,

radiological release pathways, fuel design,

filtration systems, main steam relief valve

setpoints, or radwaste systems.

(2) Create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any kind of

accident previously evaluated:

This change does not create the possibility

for an accident of a different type than any

evaluated in the SAR because:

There is no increased risk of unit trip, or

challenge to the Reactor Protection System

(RPS) or other safety systems. There is no

physical effect on the plant, i.e. none on

Reactor Coolant System (RCS) 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.

This change does not create the possibility

for a malfunction of a different type than any

evaluated in the SAR because:

There is no physical change to the plant

SSCs or operating procedures. This change

does not involve any plant changes, electrical

lineups, or valve manipulations. Analyses

have been performed which demonstrate that

the PRVS can perform its intended safety

function relying on the orifice plates to

measure flow. No new equipment or

components were installed. No credible new

failures are postulated.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

This change does not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety because:

No function of any importance 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.

Duke 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 August 17, 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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Notices 38435

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 amendment

and make it 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.

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

amendment dated July 8, 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 13th day

of July 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. 98–18960 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Knowledge and Abilities Catalog

Revision; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: NUREG–1122, ‘‘Knowledge

and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power

Plant Operators: Pressurized Water

Reactors,’’ and NUREG–1123,

‘‘Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for

Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling

Water Reactors,’’ were developed in

1985 to assist operator licensing

examiners in the development of

content valid written and operating

examinations to administer to reactor

plant operators and senior operators.

The Knowledge and Abilities (K/A)

catalogs were revised in 1995 to resolve

inconsistencies between the two

catalogs and inconsistencies in content

within the K/A catalogs. Revision 1 also

incorporated evolutionary changes in

the operator licensing program and

revised definition of operator’s tasks

within facility licensee’s organizations.

The current Revision 2 incorporates

corrections to the Revision 1 catalogs

that were identified during examination

development associated with a

proposed revision of 10 CFR 55 and

implementation of NUREG–1021,

Interim Rev. 8, ‘‘Operator Licensing

Examination Standards for Power

Reactors.’’ Revision 2 of the respective

K/A catalogs has been prepared for use

in conjunction with the implementation

of NUREG–1021, final Revision 8, but

may be used immediately.

Copies of NUREG–1122, Revision 2

and NUREG–1123, Revision 2 may be

purchased from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20013–7082. Copies are also available

from the National Technical Information

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is also

available for inspection and/or copying

for a fee in the NRC Public Document

Room. These documents are also

available at the NRC Web Site, http://

www.nrc.gov. See the links under

‘‘Technical Reports in the NUREG

Series’’ on the ‘‘Reference Library’’ page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Collins, Mail Stop O9–D24, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

telephone (301) 415–3173.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Richard J. Eckenrode,

Acting Chief, Operator Licensing and Human

Performance Branch, Division of Reactor

Controls and Human Factors, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–18958 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL SERVICE

Visits to Facilities

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of visit.

SUMMARY: A Commission visit to the

Pitney Bowes facility in Stamford, CT

has been canceled. Notice of the visit

was announced at 63 FR 32209, June 23,

1998.

DATES: The visit had been scheduled for

Monday, July 20, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,

Postal Rate Commission, Suite 300,

1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC

20268–0001, (202) 789–6720.

Dated: July 13, 1998.

Cyril J. Pittack,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19015 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–M