[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52362-52364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26642]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-261]


Carolina Power & Light Company; 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 the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the 
licensee) for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, 
Unit No. 2 (HBR) located in Darlington County, South Carolina.
    By letter dated August 27, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated 
December 18, 1996, January 17, February 18, March 27, April 6, April 
25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13, June 18, August 4, August 8, 
September 10, October 2 (RNP RA/97-0216), and October 2, 1997 (RNP RA/
97-0207), the licensee applied for full conversion from the current HBR 
Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 0, dated September 1992 
(including approved travellers used in the issuance of Revision 1, 
dated April 1995). A ``Notice of Consideration of Issuance and 
Opportunity for Hearing'' regarding conversion to the ITS was published 
in the Federal Register on October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55830). An 
``Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact'' 
regarding the conversion to ITS was published in the Federal Register 
on September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50409).
    One of the ITS conversion changes proposed by the licensee in its 
August 27, 1996, application, and addressed in the April 29, and 
October 2, 1997, supplements, requires, as a part of ITS Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.4, that the pressure in containment 
be maintained greater than or equal to -0.8 psig. CTS require that 
containment pressure be maintained greater than or equal -1.0 psig; 
therefore, the ITS LCO is more restrictive than the CTS with regard to 
this paramater. This change in minimum allowable containment pressure 
is needed to make the ITS LCO consistent with a new licensee analysis 
of an inadvertent containment spray event.
    In its letter dated October 2, 1997, the licensee provided 
justification for Commission issuance of the proposed change in minimum 
allowable containment pressure on an exigent basis. As defined in 10 
CFR 50.91(a)(6), exigent circumstances exist when the licensee and the 
Commission must act quickly and time does not exist for the Commission 
to publish a Federal Register notice allowing 30 days for prior public 
comment and the Commission also determines that the proposed amendment 
involves no significant hazards considerations. The NRC staff has 
reviewed the licensee's October 2, 1997, letter and determined that 
exigent circumstances exist in that--
    (1) Earlier issuance of this more restrictive change would be 
consistent with the most recent analysis and would enhance safety.
    (2) As described below, there appear to be no significant hazards 
considerations associated with this change.
    The licensee's ITS conversion application was prepared in 
accordance with appropriate industry guidance as provided in Nuclear 
Energy Institute Guidance document 96-06, ``Improved Technical 
Specifications Conversion Guidance,'' dated August 1996. That guidance 
did not address the need for specific no significant hazards 
discussions other than for less restrictive changes. Therefore, the 
exigent circumstances could not reasonably have been avoided in that 
the licensee was not aware of the need for a specific no significant 
hazards discussion regarding the change in minimum allowable 
containment pressure.
    Before issuance of the ITS conversion amendment, including the 
proposed change to ITS 3.6.4, the Commission will have made findings 
required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

[[Page 52363]]

(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 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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change provides a requirement of -0.8 psig for the 
minimum allowable internal containment atmospheric pressure. This 
requirement is determined to be more restrictive than the current 
Technical Specifications requirement of -1.0 psig with respect to 
plant operation. The minimum allowable containment internal 
atmospheric pressure is not assumed to be an initiator of an 
analyzed event and the new requirement is consistent with a current 
analysis relative to mitigation of the inadvertent actuation of a 
containment spray event. This change has no effect on any other 
accident or transient previously evaluated. The new requirement 
being proposed is an assumption in an analysis which enhances 
assurance that process variables, structures, systems, and 
components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and 
licensing basis of the unit. Therefore, this change does not involve 
any increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 or changes in parameters 
governing normal plant operation other than the minimum allowable 
containment atmospheric pressure. This change is consistent with 
assumptions made in the inadvertent containment spray event and has 
no other effect on other safety analyses or the licensing basis. The 
new requirement is a more restrictive Limiting Condition for 
Operations resulting from an analysis that enhances safe operation. 
Therefore, this [change] does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The imposition of the new requirement for the minimum allowable 
containment atmospheric pressure maintains the margin of plant 
safety by restricting operations to be consistent with an analysis 
of an inadvertent actuation of the containment spray system that 
utilizes analytical methods currently acceptable to the NRC. 
Therefore, this change does not involve a reduction in a 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 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 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 November 6, 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 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 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

[[Page 52364]]

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 determination. 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 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 August 27, 1996, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 18, 1996, January 17, February 18, March 27, 
April 6, April 25, April 29, May 30, June 2, June 13, June 18, August 
4, August 8, September 10, October 2 (RNP RA/97-0216), and October 2, 
1997 (RNP RA/97-0207), which are 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 3rd day of October, 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. 97-26642 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P