[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amendment request was superseded on March 27, 1997, with the proposed 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