[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3719-3721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1722]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]
Carolina Power and Light Company; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity
For a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-71 and DPR-62 issued to the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L
or the licensee) for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
(Brunswick, BSEP, BNP), Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County,
North Carolina.
The proposed amendments, requested by the licensee in a letter
dated November 1, 1996, would represent a full conversion from the
current Technical Specifications (TSs) to a set of TS based on NUREG-
1433, Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications for General
Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' dated April 1995. NUREG-1433 has been
developed through working groups composed of both NRC staff members and
the BWR/4 owners and has been endorsed by the staff as part of an
industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve TS. As part of this
submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria contained in the
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (final policy statement),''
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to
the current Brunswick TSs, and, using NUREG-1433 as a basis, developed
a proposed set of improved TSs for BSEP. The criteria in the final
policy statement were subsequently added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical
Specifications,'' in a rule change which was published in the Federal
Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and became effective on August
18, 1995.
The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the existing
TSs into four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as
administrative changes, relocated changes, technical changes--more
restrictive, and technical changes--less restrictive.
Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,
renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or
substantially revising an existing requirement. The reformatting,
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1433
and does not involve technical changes to the existing TSs. The
proposed changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc.,
for NUREG-1433 bracketed information (information which must be
supplied on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to
plant), (b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc.,
and (c) changing NUREG-1433 section wording to conform to existing
licensee practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do
not impact initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events.
Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements
and surveillances for structures, systems, components or variables that
do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TSs. Relocated changes
are those current TS requirements which do not satisfy or fall within
any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy statement
and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described
in that portion of their November 1, 1996, application titled
``Application of Selection Criteria to the BNP Technical
Specifications,'' in Volume 1 of the submittal. The affected
structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed to be
initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident
or transient events. The requirements and surveillances for these
affected structures, systems, components or variables will be relocated
from the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the BASES, the Technical
Requirements Manual (TRM), plant procedures, the Inservice Testing
(IST) Program, the Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program, the Offsite Dose
Calculation Manual (ODCM) or the Process Control Program. Changes made
to these documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other
appropriate control mechanisms. In addition, the affected structures,
systems, components or variables are addressed in existing surveillance
procedures which are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed
changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements and adequate
control of the information will be maintained.
More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent
requirements for operation of the facility. These more stringent
requirements do not result in operation that will alter assumptions
relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. The more
restrictive requirements will not alter the operation of process
variables, structures, systems and components described in the safety
analyses. For each requirement in the current BSEP TSs that is more
restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1433 which the
licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, they have provided an
explanation of why they have concluded that retaining the more
restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the
facilities because of specific design features of the plant.
Less restrictive changes are those where current requirements are
relaxed or eliminated, or new flexibility is provided. The more
significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are justified on a case-
by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide little or
no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be appropriate. In
most cases, relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a
plant-specific basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b)
new NRC staff positions that have evolved from technological
advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners
Groups' comments on the improved Standard Technical Specifications.
Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 were reviewed by the staff
and found to be acceptable because they are consistent with current
licensing practices and NRC regulations. The licensee's design will be
reviewed to determine if the specific design basis and licensing basis
are consistent with the technical basis for the model requirements in
NUREG-1433 and thus provides a basis for these revised TSs or if
relaxation of the requirements in the current TSs is warranted based on
the justification provided by the licensee.
In addition to the above changes related to conversion of the
current TSs to be similar to the ISTSs in NUREG-1433, the licensee has
proposed to change the surveillance frequency from 18 to 24 months for
all surveillances that are normally performed at refueling outages. The
proposed amendments would extend the required frequency of
[[Page 3720]]
selected surveillance requirements to 24 months to support the adoption
of a 24-month fuel cycle.
In the application of November 1, 1996, CP&L is also requesting
changes to the Unit 2 Operating License to allow single loop operation.
By letter dated November 1, 1996, the licensee submitted amendment
applications for Brunswick Units 1 and 2 to revise the TSs to allow
full implementation of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG)
Enhanced Option 1-A (EIA) Reactor Stability Long Term Solution.
Approval of these proposed amendments would permit single loop
operation for both Brunswick units. CP&L is proposing to implement the
long-term resolution of the thermal hydraulic instability concerns
concurrent with implementation of the ITS. The TS changes to permit
single loop operation have been incorporated in the ITS. However, the
Unit 2 License has a condition (2.C.(5)) that does not allow single
loop operation for more than 24 hours. The license condition was added
to permit the licensee to conduct a natural circulation test as part of
the startup test program but to preclude extended operation without
both recirculation loops in operation.
By February 24, 1997, 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 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 University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297. 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 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.
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: Docketing and
Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of
the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so
inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at
1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the
following message addressed to Mark Reinhart, Acting Director, Project
Directorate II-1: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition
was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this
Federal Register notice. 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 William D. Johnson, Vice President
and Senior Counsel, Carolina Power & Light Company, Post Office Box
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 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).
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendments dated November 1, 1996, 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 University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, William Madison Randall
[[Page 3721]]
Library, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 27602.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of January 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mark Reinhart,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-1722 Filed 1-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
