[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