[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43406-43408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20543]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-261]
Carolina Power & Light Company; Notice of 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 Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee),
for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBR)
located in Darlington County, South Carolina.
The proposed amendment would revise Required Action A.1 of
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.8 to allow
a Completion Time of 72 hours to restore service water (SW) temperature
to less than or equal to 95oF prior to entering the required actions
for plant shutdown. The amendment request was proposed as a temporary
change to be in effect until September 30, 1999.
The licensee requested that this proposed amendment be processed as
an exigent request, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), to permit
implementation during this summer. The severe and sustained period of
hot weather in the area of HBR, combined with the thermal and
hydrological characteristics of the ultimate heat sink (UHS), have
resulted in a situation where, on occasion, the existing 8-hour
Completion Time is not of sufficient duration to allow UHS temperature
to return below 95 deg.F. Additionally, an extended period of this
severely hot weather may result in several long temperature excursions
above 95 deg.F and could result in unwarranted plant power reductions
and shutdowns during a time of record energy demand.
Based on the circumstances described above, the NRC verbally issued
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on July 31, 1999. The NOED
was documented by letter dated August 3, 1999. The NOED expressed the
NRC's intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with
the 8-hour Completion Time of TS 3.7.8 until the exigent TS amendment
request to revise TS 3.7.8, which the licensee submitted on July 30,
1999, is processed.
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:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of
plant systems, structures or components. The proposed change
provides a revised allowed time for the plant condition where UHS
temperature exceeds the design limit of 95 deg.F. SW system
temperature is not assumed to be an initiating condition of any
accident analysis evaluated in the safety analysis report (SAR).
Therefore, the revised limitation for SW temperature to be in excess
of the design limit does not involve an increase in the probability
of an accident previously evaluated in the safety analysis report.
The SW system supports operability of safety-related systems used to
mitigate the consequences of an accident. Plant equipment has been
analyzed and determined able to perform its safety-related function
through the allowed maximum SW temperature of 99 deg.F. Performance
of the containment has not been the subject of a specific re-
analysis at the proposed temperatures with current licensing basis
methodologies. However, based on engineering judgement, the [effect]
on
[[Page 43407]]
containment performance from the elevated SW temperature for the
proposed period of time would not be significant. The magnitude of
any increase in SW temperature in excess of the design limit is
expected to be small based on historical data and experience for the
UHS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated in the SAR.
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. The temperature of the SW
when near or slightly above the design temperature does not
introduce new failure mechanisms for systems, structures or
components not already considered in the SAR. Therefore, the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed change will allow a small increase in SW
temperature above the design basis limit for a limited period of
time. This will delay the requirement to shutdown the plant for an
additional 64 hours beyond the currently 8 hours Completion Time.
Design margins are affected which are associated with systems,
structures and components which are cooled by the SW system, and
system temperature is an input assumption for mitigating the effects
of a DBA [design-basis accident]. However, allowing this additional
time for SW temperature to exceed the design limit is expected to
have a negligible [effect] on containment performance, and no
adverse impact on other analyzed plant equipment. Therefore, there
is no significant reduction in margin of safety associated with this
proposed change.
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 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 September 8, 1999, 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 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
[[Page 43408]]
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: 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 William D. Johnson, Vice President
and Corporate Secretary, 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 July 30, 1999, 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 Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West
College Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina 29550.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-20543 Filed 8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
