[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43406-43408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20543]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-261]


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. 
DPR-23, issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, the licensee), 
for operation of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (HBR) 
located in Darlington County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would revise Required Action A.1 of 
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.8 to allow 
a Completion Time of 72 hours to restore service water (SW) temperature 
to less than or equal to 95oF prior to entering the required actions 
for plant shutdown. The amendment request was proposed as a temporary 
change to be in effect until September 30, 1999.
    The licensee requested that this proposed amendment be processed as 
an exigent request, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), to permit 
implementation during this summer. The severe and sustained period of 
hot weather in the area of HBR, combined with the thermal and 
hydrological characteristics of the ultimate heat sink (UHS), have 
resulted in a situation where, on occasion, the existing 8-hour 
Completion Time is not of sufficient duration to allow UHS temperature 
to return below 95 deg.F. Additionally, an extended period of this 
severely hot weather may result in several long temperature excursions 
above 95 deg.F and could result in unwarranted plant power reductions 
and shutdowns during a time of record energy demand.
    Based on the circumstances described above, the NRC verbally issued 
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on July 31, 1999. The NOED 
was documented by letter dated August 3, 1999. The NOED expressed the 
NRC's intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with 
the 8-hour Completion Time of TS 3.7.8 until the exigent TS amendment 
request to revise TS 3.7.8, which the licensee submitted on July 30, 
1999, is processed.
    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:

    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 a revised allowed time for the plant condition where UHS 
temperature exceeds the design limit of 95 deg.F. SW system 
temperature is not assumed to be an initiating condition of any 
accident analysis evaluated in the safety analysis report (SAR). 
Therefore, the revised limitation for SW 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. 
The SW system supports operability of safety-related systems used to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. Plant equipment has been 
analyzed and determined able to perform its safety-related function 
through the allowed maximum SW temperature of 99 deg.F. Performance 
of the containment has not been the subject of a specific re-
analysis at the proposed temperatures with current licensing basis 
methodologies. However, based on engineering judgement, the [effect] 
on

[[Page 43407]]

containment performance from the elevated SW temperature for the 
proposed period of time would not be significant. The magnitude of 
any increase in SW temperature in excess of the design limit is 
expected to be small based on historical data and experience for the 
UHS. 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 SW 
when near or slightly above the 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 SW 
temperature above the design basis limit for a limited period of 
time. This will delay the requirement to shutdown the plant for an 
additional 64 hours beyond the currently 8 hours Completion Time. 
Design margins are affected which are associated with systems, 
structures and components which are cooled by the SW system, and 
system temperature is an input assumption for mitigating the effects 
of a DBA [design-basis accident]. However, allowing this additional 
time for SW temperature to exceed the design limit is expected to 
have a negligible [effect] on containment performance, and no 
adverse impact on other analyzed plant equipment. Therefore, there 
is no significant reduction in margin of safety associated with this 
proposed 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 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 September 8, 1999, 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

[[Page 43408]]

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 Corporate Secretary, 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 July 30, 1999, 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-20543 Filed 8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P