[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15542-15544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8400]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]
Carolina Power & Light Co. 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 Nos.
DPR-71 and DPR-62, issued to the Carolina Power & Light Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP)
Units 1 and 2 respectively, located near Southport in Brunswick County,
North Carolina.
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS) for BSEP Units 1 and 2 to eliminate certain instrumentation
response time testing requirements in accordance with
[[Page 15543]]
NRC-approved BWR Owners Group Topical Report NEDO-32291-A, ``System
Analysis for the Elimination of Selected Response Time Testing
Requirements.'' The testing requirements are associated with the
reactor protection system (RPS), isolation system, and emergency core
cooling system (ECCS). The proposed amendment must be issued in a
timely manner to avoid an unnecessary shutdown of both BSEP units as a
result of forcing compliance with current TS requirements. Such a
shutdown creates a potential for an undesirable plant transient and is
unnecessary in that the proposed TS, which would permit continued
operation, are consistent with guidelines already approved by the NRC
staff.
The licensee was formally notified by the NRC on March 21, 1997, of
the potential that its response time testing procedures, which are
consistent with the NRC-approved NEDO-32291-A Topical Report, do not
meet current TS surveillance requirements. The licensee then promptly
examined its testing practices, determined that a TS compliance issue
existed, and submitted a TS amendment request on March 24, 1997. That
amendment request was superseded on March 27, 1997, with the proposed
amendment addressed by this notice. The NRC staff is thus satisfied
that, once formally notified of a potential TS compliance problem, the
licensee used its best efforts to make a timely amendment request.
In response to a March 21, 1997, verbal request from the licensee,
enforcement discretion was granted by the NRC on this matter until
April 21, 1997, while the proposed amendment is publicly noticed and
considered by the NRC. The licensee's request for enforcement
discretion is documented in a letter to the NRC dated March 22, 1997.
The NRC's approval of that request is documented in a letter dated
March 25, 1997. Both letters are available to the public.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, 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 amendment 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:
CP&L has reviewed these proposed license amendment requests and
concluded that their adoption does not involve a significant hazards
consideration. The bases for this determination follows.
1. The proposed license amendments do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
BWR Owners' Group Licensing Topical Report NEDO-32291-A
demonstrates that quantitative response time testing is redundant to
other Technical Specification requirements. Qualitative tests are
sufficient to identify failure modes or degradation in instrument
response time and ensure operation of the associated systems within
acceptance limits. There are no known failure modes that can be
detected by response time testing that cannot also be detected by
other Technical Specification required tests. ECCS, RPS, and
Isolation System response times will continue to be determined using
a methodology that has been reviewed and approved by the NRC.
Therefore, the proposed license amendments do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed license amendments would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed license amendments do not affect the capability of
the associated systems to perform their intended function within the
acceptance limits assumed in the plant safety analyses and required
for successful mitigation of an initiating event. The proposed
amendments do not change the way in which any plant systems are
operated. ECCS, RPS, and Isolation System response times will
continue to be determined using a methodology that has been reviewed
and approved by the NRC. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. The proposed license amendments do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The current Technical Specification response times are based on
the maximum allowable values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
These analyses conservatively establish the margin of safety. As
described above, determination of response times based on an
alternate NRC approved methodology (i.e., provided in the NEDO-
32291-A report) will not affect the capability of the associated
systems to perform their intended function within the allowed
response time used as the bases for the plant safety analyses. Plant
and system response to an initiating event will remain in compliance
with the assumptions of the safety analyses; therefore, the margin
of safety is not affected.
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 amendment involves 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
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 May 1, 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
[[Page 15544]]
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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 Mr. Mark Reinhart, Acting Director,
Project Directorate II-1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 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 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 March 27, 1997, 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 Library, 601 S. College Road,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 27th day of March 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. 97-8400 Filed 3-31-97; 12:485 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
