[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52362-52364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26642]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-261]
Carolina Power & Light Company; Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity For a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-23 issued to the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the
licensee) for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,
Unit No. 2 (HBR) located in Darlington County, South Carolina.
By letter dated August 27, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated
December 18, 1996, January 17, February 18, March 27, April 6, April
25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13, June 18, August 4, August 8,
September 10, October 2 (RNP RA/97-0216), and October 2, 1997 (RNP RA/
97-0207), the licensee applied for full conversion from the current HBR
Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of improved Technical
Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical
Specifications Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 0, dated September 1992
(including approved travellers used in the issuance of Revision 1,
dated April 1995). A ``Notice of Consideration of Issuance and
Opportunity for Hearing'' regarding conversion to the ITS was published
in the Federal Register on October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55830). An
``Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact''
regarding the conversion to ITS was published in the Federal Register
on September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50409).
One of the ITS conversion changes proposed by the licensee in its
August 27, 1996, application, and addressed in the April 29, and
October 2, 1997, supplements, requires, as a part of ITS Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.4, that the pressure in containment
be maintained greater than or equal to -0.8 psig. CTS require that
containment pressure be maintained greater than or equal -1.0 psig;
therefore, the ITS LCO is more restrictive than the CTS with regard to
this paramater. This change in minimum allowable containment pressure
is needed to make the ITS LCO consistent with a new licensee analysis
of an inadvertent containment spray event.
In its letter dated October 2, 1997, the licensee provided
justification for Commission issuance of the proposed change in minimum
allowable containment pressure on an exigent basis. As defined in 10
CFR 50.91(a)(6), exigent circumstances exist when the licensee and the
Commission must act quickly and time does not exist for the Commission
to publish a Federal Register notice allowing 30 days for prior public
comment and the Commission also determines that the proposed amendment
involves no significant hazards considerations. The NRC staff has
reviewed the licensee's October 2, 1997, letter and determined that
exigent circumstances exist in that--
(1) Earlier issuance of this more restrictive change would be
consistent with the most recent analysis and would enhance safety.
(2) As described below, there appear to be no significant hazards
considerations associated with this change.
The licensee's ITS conversion application was prepared in
accordance with appropriate industry guidance as provided in Nuclear
Energy Institute Guidance document 96-06, ``Improved Technical
Specifications Conversion Guidance,'' dated August 1996. That guidance
did not address the need for specific no significant hazards
discussions other than for less restrictive changes. Therefore, the
exigent circumstances could not reasonably have been avoided in that
the licensee was not aware of the need for a specific no significant
hazards discussion regarding the change in minimum allowable
containment pressure.
Before issuance of the ITS conversion amendment, including the
proposed change to ITS 3.6.4, the Commission will have made findings
required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
[[Page 52363]]
(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:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change provides a requirement of -0.8 psig for the
minimum allowable internal containment atmospheric pressure. This
requirement is determined to be more restrictive than the current
Technical Specifications requirement of -1.0 psig with respect to
plant operation. The minimum allowable containment internal
atmospheric pressure is not assumed to be an initiator of an
analyzed event and the new requirement is consistent with a current
analysis relative to mitigation of the inadvertent actuation of a
containment spray event. This change has no effect on any other
accident or transient previously evaluated. The new requirement
being proposed is an assumption in an analysis which enhances
assurance that process variables, structures, systems, and
components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and
licensing basis of the unit. Therefore, this change does not involve
any 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?
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of
plant systems, structures, or components or changes in parameters
governing normal plant operation other than the minimum allowable
containment atmospheric pressure. This change is consistent with
assumptions made in the inadvertent containment spray event and has
no other effect on other safety analyses or the licensing basis. The
new requirement is a more restrictive Limiting Condition for
Operations resulting from an analysis that enhances safe operation.
Therefore, this [change] does 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?
The imposition of the new requirement for the minimum allowable
containment atmospheric pressure maintains the margin of plant
safety by restricting operations to be consistent with an analysis
of an inadvertent actuation of the containment spray system that
utilizes analytical methods currently acceptable to the NRC.
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 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 amendment 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 amendment 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 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
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 6D22, 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 November 6, 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 Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West
College Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina 29550. 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
[[Page 52364]]
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.
If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards determination. 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 amendment.
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. 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).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated August 27, 1996, as supplemented by
letters dated December 18, 1996, January 17, February 18, March 27,
April 6, April 25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13, June 18, August
4, August 8, September 10, October 2 (RNP RA/97-0216), and October 2,
1997 (RNP RA/97-0207), 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 Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West College Avenue, Hartsville,
South Carolina 29550.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October, 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David C. Trimble,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-26642 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
