[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48897-48899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24680]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]
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 amendments 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, Units 1
and 2 (BSEP) located in Southport, North Carolina.
In an application dated August 6, 1997, as supplemented on August
26, 1997, the licensee proposed license amendments addressing an
unreviewed safety question associated with handling of the spent fuel
shipping cask at the BSEP. In a letter to the NRC dated November 16,
1982, the licensee characterized the cask lift rigging as having a
redundant design. More recently, while responding to NRC questions
related to NRC Bulletin 96-02, ``Movement of Heavy Loads Over Spent
Fuel,'' the licensee determined that site procedures allow lifting and
loading of a IF-300 spent fuel shipping cask with only the primary yoke
(a configuration that is not single-failure proof) during transfer from
the tilting cradle to the secondary yoke. The cask is transported on a
railway car in a horizontal position. After inspection and removal of
any crash structure and tie-downs, the valve box covers are removed and
the cask is raised to a vertical position using the primary yoke (which
is non-redundant). The primary yoke is used to lift the cask from the
tilting cradle and place it in the secondary yoke which is also on the
railway car. Once the secondary yoke is engaged, the lifting device has
redundant lifting capability. Similarly, after the cask is returned to
the railway car, only the primary yoke is used in returning the cask
from the vertical to
[[Page 48898]]
the horizontal position. The licensee concluded that the portion of the
cask handling evolution where only the primary yoke is employed has not
been reviewed by the NRC.
The licensee performed an analysis which considers the design,
testing, and inspections of the primary yoke and concluded that there
is high confidence that the primary yoke will not fail.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination 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. The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Originally, a cask drop was not deemed a credible accident
because the cask redundant lifting yoke is of redundant design and the
crane on which it is used is single failure proof. Although a non-
redundant lift is involved during transfer of the cask from the tilting
cradle to the secondary yoke, analysis indicates that based on the
design of the primary yoke, previous load tests, and a thorough
inspection program, a drop of the spent fuel shipping cask is not
credible. A non-redundant lift is assumed to have a slightly higher
probability of failure than a redundant lift. However, the increased
potential for a drop resulting from a non-redundant lift is not
significant. Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed license amendment will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. CP&L has demonstrated that a cask drop accident is not
credible using the existing procedures for spent fuel shipping cask
handling at BSEP. Therefore, the proposed license amendment will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. Originally, a cask drop was not deemed
a credible accident because the cask redundant lifting yoke is of
redundant design and the crane on which it is used is single failure
proof. Although a non-redundant lift is involved during transfer of the
cask from the tilting cradle to the secondary yoke, a drop of the spent
fuel shipping cask is not credible based on the design of the primary
yoke, previous load tests, and a thorough inspection program. Since the
cask drop remains a non-credible event, the proposed amendment does not
result in a reduction of the 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 30 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 30-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 30-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 October 17, 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
[[Page 48899]]
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 a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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 General Counsel, Carolina Power &
Light Company, P.O. 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 amendments dated August 6, 1997, as supplemented on
August 26, 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, Maryland, this 11th day of September 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. 97-24680 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
