[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36967-36969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18064]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-261]


Carolina Power & Light; 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-23, issued to Carolina Power & Light (CP&L or the licensee), for 
operation of the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, located in 
Darlington County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
3.7.8, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to permit an 8-hour delay in UHS 
temperature restoration period prior to entering the plant shutdown 
required actions. Also, for the duration of the restoration, service 
water system (SWS) temperature will be monitored hourly, and should the 
temperature exceed 99 degrees F, the plant will enter TS 3.7.8 required 
action A.1, and be in MODE 3 within 6 hours.
    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:

    Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) Company has evaluated the proposed 
Technical Specification change and has concluded that it does not 
involve a significant hazards consideration. The conclusion is in 
accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92. The bases 
for the conclusion that the proposed change does not involve a 
significant hazards consideration are discussed below.
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of 
plant systems, structures or components. The proposed change 
provides an allowed time for the plant condition resulting from 
service water temperature in excess of the design limit of 95 deg.F. 
The Service Water System (SWS) temperature is not assumed to be an 
initiating condition of any accident analysis evaluated in the 
safety analysis report. Therefore, the allowance of a limited time 
for service water temperature to be in excess of the design limit 
does not involve an increase in the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated in the safety analysis report (SAR). The SWS 
supports operability of safety related systems used to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident. An increase in service water 
temperature in excess of the design limit is expected to be small 
due to the limited time allowed by the proposed change in 
conjunction with the generally slow rate of temperature increase 
experienced from thermal changes in Lake Robinson. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in 
the SAR.
    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. The temperature of the 
service water when near or slightly above the service water design 
temperature does not introduce new failure mechanisms for systems, 
structures or components not already considered in the SAR. 
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The proposed change will allow a small increase in service water 
temperature above the design basis limit for the service water 
system and delay the requirement to shutdown the plant when the 
service water system design limit is exceeded by 8 hours. There are 
design margins associated with systems, structures and components 
that are cooled by the service water system that are affected. The 
service water system temperature is an input assumption for 
mitigating the effects of design basis accidents. However, an 
increase in service water temperature in excess of design limit is 
expected to be small due to the limited time allowed by the proposed 
change in conjunction with the slow rate of temperature increase 
experienced from thermal changes in Lake Robinson. Therefore, there 
is no significant reduction in margin of safety associated with this 
change.

    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

[[Page 36968]]

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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 August 7, 1998, 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 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: 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 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 June 26, 1998, 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 Hartsville Memorial Library, 147 West 
College Avenue, Hartsville, South Carolina 29550.


[[Page 36969]]


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of July 1998.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ram Subbaratnam,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-18064 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P