[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63739-63742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30175]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 or NRC) 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, Units 1 
and 2 (BSEP) located in Southport, North Carolina.
    Effective October 26, 1995, the Commission amended its regulations 
(10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J) to provide a performance-based option for 
leakage-rate testing of containments of light-water-cooled nuclear 
plants. The proposed amendment would permit the licensee to implement 
this performance-based option, which allows leakage testing intervals 
to be based on system and component testing performance.
    The proposed amendment requires the establishment of a ``Primary 
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program'' (program) and makes general 
reference to the NRC guidance utilized by the licensee for development 
of this program, i.e. Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based 
Containment Leak-Test Program''. Regulatory Guide 1.163 addresses the 
acceptability of industry-

[[Page 63740]]
developed guidance described in Nuclear Energy Institute document NEI 
94-01, entitled ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based 
Option of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.'' The proposed amendment takes 
one exception to the guidance in NEI 94-01. Based upon the use of 
compensatory measures, the exception would allow the use of less 
accurate flow measuring equipment.
    Certain containment leakage testing schedules and details regarding 
the scope of containment valves and penetrations to be leak-tested will 
be included in the licensee's program but would be removed by this 
proposed amendment from the BSEP Technical Specifications. Consistent 
with NEI 94-01 the proposed amendment relaxes the schedules for 
performing primary containment air lock leakage surveillance testing 
and, if the interval for testing of overall containment leakage (Type A 
testing) has been extended under the program to 10 years, requires 
inspections for containment integrity during two other refueling 
outages before the next Type A test as well as immediately prior to 
that test.
    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 amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed license amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications to reflect the adoption of a performance-
based containment leakage-testing program. The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has approved the use of a performance-based option for 
containment leakage testing programs when it amended 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J (60 FR 49495).
    For adoption of the revised regulations, licensees are required 
to incorporate into their Technical Specifications, by general 
reference, the NRC regulatory guide or other plant-specific 
implementing document [used to develop the performance-based 
leakage-testing program]. A new Administrative Control subsection is 
being added to the Brunswick Plant Technical Specifications that 
requires the establishment and maintenance of a Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program. As stated in the Technical 
Specification, this Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program 
will conform with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.163, Revision 0, dated 
September 1995, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Rate Testing 
Program'' by establishing leakage testing intervals based on the 
criteria in Section 11.0 of NEI 94-01. The Technical Specifications 
will continue to require performance of a periodic general visual 
inspection of the containment to ensure early detection of any 
structural deterioration of the containment system that might occur.
    The effect of increasing containment leakage rate testing 
intervals has been evaluated by the Nuclear Energy Institute using 
the methodology described in NUREG-1493 [``Performance-Based 
Containment Leak-Test Program'', September 1995] and historical 
representative industry leakage rate testing data. The results of 
this evaluation, as published in NEI 94-01, Revision 0, are that the 
increased risk corresponding to the extended test interval is small 
(less than 0.1 percent of total risk) and compares well to the 
guidance of the NRC's safety goal. Therefore, adoption of 
performance-based verification of leakage rates for isolation 
valves, containment penetrations, and the overall containment 
boundary will provide an equivalent level of safety and does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed license amendments will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. No safety-related equipment, safety function, 
or plant operations will be altered as a result of the proposed 
license amendment. The safety objective for the primary containment 
is stated in 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for 
Nuclear Power Plants.'' The safety function of the primary 
containment will be met since the containment will continue to 
provide ``an essentially leak-tight barrier against the uncontrolled 
release of radioactivity to the environment * * *'' for postulated 
accidents. Therefore, the proposed license amendments will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed license amendments do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. As stated above, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has approved the use of a performance-based 
option for containment leakage testing programs when it amended 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix J (60 FR 49495). The new Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program will conform with NRC Regulatory Guide 
1.163, Revision 0, dated September 1995, ``Performance-Based 
Containment Leak-Rate Testing Program'' by requiring that leakage 
testing intervals be established based on the criteria in Section 
11.0 of NEI 94-01, Revision 0.
    As discussed in Part 1 above, the effect of increasing 
containment leakage rate testing intervals has been evaluated by the 
Nuclear Energy Institute using the methodology described in NUREG-
1493 and historical representative industry leakage rate testing 
data. The results of this evaluation, as published in NEI 94-01, 
Revision 0, are that the increased safety risk corresponding to the 
extended test intervals is small (less than 0.1 percent of total 
risk) and compares well to the guidance of the NRC's safety goal. In 
addition, as demonstrated by risk analyses contained in NUREG-1482 
(sic) [NUREG-1493], relaxation of the integrated leak rate test 
frequency does not significantly increase the probability or 
consequences of a previously evaluated accident. Integrated leakage 
rate tests have been demonstrated to be of limited value in 
detecting significant leakages from penetrations and isolation 
valves. Therefore, the proposed license amendments adopting a 
performance-based approach for verification of leakage rates for 
isolation valves, containment penetrations, and the containment 
overall will continue to meet the regulatory goal of providing an 
essentially leak-tight containment boundary, will provide an 
equivalent level of safety, and do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The revised Technical Specifications will continue to maintain 
the allowable leak rate (L<INF>a) as the Type A test [containment 
overall leak-rate test] performance criterion. In addition, a 
requirement to perform a periodic general visual inspection of the 
containment has been maintained as part of the performance-based 
leakage testing program.
    The revised Technical Specifications will continue to maintain 
the allowable leak rate (L<INF>a) (sic) [0.6 L<INF>a] as the Type B 
[containment penetration leak-rate test] and C [containment 
isolation valve leak-rate test] tests' performance criterion. As 
supported by the findings of NUREG-1493, the percentage of leakages 
detected only by integrated leak rate tests is small (only a few 
percent) and Type B and C leakage tests are capable of detecting 
more than 97 percent of containment leakages and virtually all such 
leakages are identified by local leak rate tests (LLRTs) of 
containment isolation valves.
    Thus, the proposed license amendments do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety and will continue to 
ensure the revised Appendix J regulatory goal of ensuring an 
essentially leak-tight containment boundary.

    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 

[[Page 63741]]
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 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 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, 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 January 11, 1996, 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 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, 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 David B. Matthews, 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, and to General Counsel, 
Carolina Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 
27602, attorney for the licensee. 

[[Page 63742]]

    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 September 13, 1995, as amended on 
November 27, 1995, 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 5th day of December 1995.

    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. 95-30175 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P