[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47529-47531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24010]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-400]


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 an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-63 issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant located in Wake and 
Chatham Counties, North Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Harris Nuclear Plant (HNP) 
Technical Specifications (TS) concerning the applicability of Limiting 
Conditions for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance Requirements (SR). 
Specifically, HNP proposes to revise TS 3.0.4 and associated 
specifications; TS 4.0.4; and Bases for TS 3.0.3, TS 3.0.4, and TS 
4.0.4 to be consistent with Generic Letter 87-09 dated June 4, 1987.
    This proposed TS change is needed due to the verbatim requirements 
of TS 3.0.4 and inoperable TS equipment that would prevent plant 
shutdown. A verbatim reading of the current HNP TS 3.0.4 would not 
allow entry into a lesser operational mode if required TS components 
were inoperable.
    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.
    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 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:

    1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed revision to TS 3.0.4 allows entry into an 
operational condition in accordance with action requirements when 
conformance to the action requirements permits continued operation 
of the facility for an unlimited period of time. This operational 
flexibility is consistent with that allowed by the existing 
individual LCOs and their associated action requirements which 
provide an acceptable level of safety for continued operation.
    The proposed revision to TS 4.0.4 clarifies that Specification 
4.0.4 does not prevent passage through or to operational conditions 
as required to comply with action requirements. This is consistent 
with the existing Specification 3.0.4. In addition, the potential 
for plant upset and challenge to safety systems is heightened if 
surveillances are performed during a shutdown to comply with Action 
Requirements.
    The revisions to the Bases Section 3.0 and 4.0 and the 
elimination of specific exceptions

[[Page 47530]]

to Specification 3.0.4 are administrative in nature and, therefore, 
do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. There is no physical alteration to any plant 
system, nor is there a change in the method in which any safety 
related system performs its function.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated 
because there is no physical alteration to any plant system, nor is 
there a change in the method in which any safety related system 
performs its function.
    The revisions to the Bases Sections 3.0 and 4.0 and the 
elimination of specific exemptions to Specification 3.0.4 are 
administrative in nature and, therefore, do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The revision to Specification 3.0.4 allows operational 
flexibility which is consistent with that allowed by the existing 
individual LCOs and their associated action requirements which 
provide an acceptable level of safety for continued operation. The 
proposed revision to Specification 4.0.4 is a clarification to the 
specification and as such is administrative in nature. The revision 
makes it clear that Specification 4.0.4 does not prevent passage 
through or to operational conditions as required to comply with 
action requirements. This is consistent with the existing 
Specification 3.0.4. These revisions result in improved Technical 
Specifications, and therefore, increase the margin of safety.
    The revisions to the Bases Sections 3.0 and 4.0 and the 
elimination of specific exemptions to Specification 3.0.4 are 
administrative in nature and, therefore, do not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in 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 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 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 October 8, 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 Cameron Village Regional Library, 1930 
Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605. 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

[[Page 47531]]

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 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, 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 Cameron Village Regional Library, 1930 
Clark Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of September, 1998.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scott C. Flanders,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-24010 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P