[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1039-1040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-338]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-261]
Carolina Power & Light Co., (H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit No. 2); Exemption
I
Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L or the licensee) is the
holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-23, which authorizes
operation of the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBR),
at steady-state reactor power level not in excess of 2300 megawatts
thermal. The facility consists of one pressurized water reactor located
at the licensee's site in Darlington County, South Carolina. The
license provides, among other things, that it is subject to all rules,
regulations and Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) now or hereafter in effect.
II
Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR part 50 requires a licensee authorized
to operate a nuclear power reactor to follow and maintain in effect
emergency plans that meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the
requirements of appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. Section IV.F.2 of
appendix E requires that each licensee annually exercise its emergency
plan. Section IV.F.3 of appendix E requires that each licensee shall
exercise with offsite authorities such that the State and local
emergency plans are exercised biennially.
The NRC may grant exemptions from the requirements of the
regulations which, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are (1) authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety,
and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2)
present special circumstances. Special circumstances exist when the
exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that
compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the
granting of the exemption (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iv)). In addition,
special circumstances exist when the exemption would provide only
temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has
made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation (10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(v)).
III
By letters dated November 21 and 22, 1993, the licensee requested
an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50,
appendix E, section F.2, to conduct an annual exercise of the Emergency
Plan in 1993. The licensee had planned to conduct a full-participation
exercise involving the licensee's onsite response organization, the
State of South Carolina and local response organizations on November
30, 1993. The licensee requested that an exemption be granted for the
conduct of the onsite portion of the exercise because the licensee
would not have sufficient staff to exercise in a meaningful way the HBR
Emergency Plan due to resource constraints caused by an unscheduled
outage to investigate and address core design issues. This proposed
delay will prevent HBR from meeting the requirement to conduct an
annual exercise of the HBR Emergency Plan. However, the licensee
proposes that the offsite portion of the exercise involving the State
of South Carolina and local governmental authorities be conducted as
scheduled on November 30, 1993.
The licensee states that the granting of a delay in the
implementation of the 1993 exercise for the onsite portion of the HBR
Emergency Plan would allow management to focus on the safety issues
identified during startup after refueling outage 15. The HBR plant was
proceeding to full power operation after a refueling outage when low
power physics testing revealed an improper configuration emanating from
the design of the new fuel. The new fuel consisted of 44 fuel
assemblies, 6 of which were found to be configured improperly against
design specifications. As a result, the NRC dispatched an Augmented
Inspection Team to the HBR site and the licensee formed three
investigative teams. All of these efforts currently divert focus and
resources to develop corrective actions for core reconfiguration and to
investigate and resolve any industry implications of fuel configuration
problems.
The previous emergency preparedness exercise at HBR was
successfully conducted on November 17, 1992, and included the partial
participation of State and local agencies for notifications and
communications only. The licensee had scheduled, planned, and
coordinated the 1993 exercise with participating Federal, State, and
local agencies for November 30, 1993. The scope and objectives, and the
final scenario documentation for the November 1993 exercise were
submitted to the NRC on September 13, 1993, and October 14, 1993,
respectively, which is within the time frame established for their
submittal in support of a November 1993 exercise. In addition, the
licensee states that a training exercise with the State of South
Carolina and local governmental agencies was conducted on November 16,
1993, which activated all emergency facilities and included
participation from all major responder groups.
The schedule for future exercises will not be affected by this
exemption. CP&L has stated it will conduct the previously scheduled
1994 exercise the week of November 15, 1994, as planned. Thus, the
requested exemption would provide only temporary relief from the
requirement to conduct an annual exercise and the licensee has made a
good faith effort to comply with the regulation.
The November 30, 1993, exercise was conducted and evaluated by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as planned and included full
participation by the State of South Carolina and the surrounding
counties in the Plume Exposure Emergency Planning Zone. The exercise
was fully supported by onsite exercise controllers such that no
detection of simulation was apparent to the offsite participants. FEMA
had concurred in this concept. The licensee stated that the State of
South Carolina would support the delayed onsite exercise.
The most recent NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP) report for HBR, issued on September 8, 1992, for the period
March 31, 1991, through June 27, 1992, indicated that adequate
management support for the emergency preparedness program was evident
during the period, as the licensee continued to maintain in a state of
basic readiness the emergency preparedness elements needed to implement
the emergency in response to emergency events. The licensee has been
rated as Category 2 (Improving) in the functional area of emergency
preparedness. Additionally, the May 14, 1993, inspection report (50-
261/93-09) of the H. B. Robinson Emergency Preparedness Program,
conducted April 12-16, 1993, indicates the emergency preparedness
strengths were management's commitment to improving the site's
emergency preparedness program and the licensee's annual emergency
preparedness audit. It was determined that the licensee's emergency
preparedness program and response capability were being maintained in
an adequate state of operational readiness.
IV
Based upon a review of the licensee's request for an exemption from
the requirement to conduct an exercise of the HBR Emergency Plan in
1993, the NRC staff finds that there will be a benefit to the public
health and safety which compensates for any decrease in safety that may
result from the rescheduling of the November 30, 1993, exercise to the
week of March 21, 1994. By not conducting the exercise at this time,
HBR will be able to concentrate its effort in the investigation and
analysis of the core design issue. The adequate response capability
demonstrated by the licensee during the 1992 emergency preparedness
exercise, the activities in preparation for the 1993 exercise,
including the comprehensive training exercise conducted with offsite
authorities on November 16, 1993, and the readiness of the licensee's
emergency preparedness program as reflected in its SALP rating and the
most recent inspection report, provide assurance that the resources and
personnel necessary for proper emergency response are in place to
respond to a nuclear emergency at the HBR site. Thus, not conducting an
exercise in 1993 would be offset by allowing the licensee to focus its
attention on the investigation and core design issues and the requested
exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section
IV.F, to defer the performance of an exercise of the HBR Emergency Plan
until the week of March 21, 1994, will not adversely affect the overall
state of emergency preparedness at the HBR site.
The Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
exemption requested by the licensee's letters dated November 21 and 22,
1993, as discussed above, is authorized by law and will not endanger
life or property and are otherwise in the public interest. Furthermore,
the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), that
special circumstances as set forth in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iv) and (v)
are present and applicable in that the benefit to the public health and
safety compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from this
exemption, and this exemption will provide only temporary relief from
the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts
to comply with the regulations.
The Commission hereby grants an exemption from the schedular
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2., for an
extension of the onsite portion of the required biennial exercise of
the HBR2 Emergency Plan from November 30, 1993, until week of March 21,
1994.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that
granting this exemption will have no significant impact on the
environment.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of December 1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gus C. Lainas,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-338 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
