[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21481-21483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9965]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-325]


Carolina Power & Light Company, et al.; 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-71 issued to Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., (the licensee) 
for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1, located in 
Brunswick County, North Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would modify Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.1.3.3 to allow partial insertion of control rod 26-47 instead of 
insertion of one complete notch. This revised acceptance criterion will 
be limited to the current Unit No. 1 operating cycle, after which the 
current one-notch requirement will be re-established.
    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

[[Page 21482]]

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. Partial insertion of control rod 26-47 versus insertion of 
one notch does not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This change does not affect either the design or operation of 
the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM). The affected surveillance is 
not considered to be an initiator of any analyzed event. Revising 
the acceptance criterion for SR 3.1.3.3 for control rod 26-47 will 
not affect the ability of the control rods to shutdown the reactor 
if required. Allowing partial insertion of control rod 26-47 versus 
one notch insertion will not affect the overall intent of SR 3.1.3.3 
and will provide adequate assurance that control rod 26-47 remains 
capable of insertion. The proposed change is only applicable to 
control rod 26-47; all other partially withdrawn control rods will 
be tested by inserting them one notch. Additionally, the insertion 
capability of all fully withdrawn control rods is demonstrated on a 
7 day frequency. Hence, the overall intent of SR 3.1.3.3, which is 
to detect either random stuck control rods or identify generic 
concerns affecting control rod operability, is not significantly 
affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed 
accident.
    2. Partial insertion of control rod 26-47 versus insertion of 
one notch will not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Revising the acceptance criterion of SR 3.1.3.3 for control rod 
26-47 does not involve physical modification to the plant and does 
not introduce a new mode of operation. Therefore, there is no 
possibility of an accident of a new or different type.
    3. Partial insertion of control rod 26-47 versus insertion of 
one notch does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    Revising the acceptance criterion of SR 3.1.3.3 only provides a 
minor reduction in the probability of finding that rod 26-47 is 
stuck. Partially inserting control rod 26-47 once per 31 days will 
provide adequate assurance that control rod 26-47 remains capable of 
insertion.
    The proposed change is only applicable to control rod 26-47; all 
other partially withdrawn control rods will be tested by inserting 
them one full notch.
    Additionally, the insertion capability of all fully withdrawn 
control rods is demonstrated on a 7 day frequency. Hence, the 
overall intent of SR 3.1.3.3, which is to detect either random stuck 
control rods or identify generic concerns affecting control rod 
operability, is not significantly affected by the proposed change. 
Additionally, industry experience has shown stuck control rods to be 
an extremely rare event. Should a stuck control rod be discovered, 
100% of the remaining control rods will be tested within 24 hours 
per the requirements of Action A.3 of TS 3.1.3.
    On March 28, 2000, it was determined that BSEP [Brunswick Steam 
Electric Plant], Unit No. 1 had developed a problem which has 
resulted in the inability to withdraw control rod 26-47. The control 
rod remains operable and is fully capable of being automatically or 
manually inserted. Performance of SR 3.1.3.3, with the current 
acceptance criterion, will unnecessarily impact the control rod 
blade by increasing the rate of depletion of its neutron absorption 
capability as more of the blade will be exposed to the operating 
core. Performance of SR 3.1.3.3 by partial insertion of control rod 
26-47 versus insertion of one notch can be accomplished by observing 
control rod position indication in the control room. A one notch 
insertion represents two reed switch positions; notches are located 
at even numbered reed switch positions. For control rod 26-47, SR 
3.1.3.3 will be performed by inserting the control rod sufficiently 
to cause reed switch movement, as determined by intermediate rod 
position indication (i.e., blackout of starting rod position on the 
four rod display) in the control room. At that point, the control 
rod will be allowed to settle to its original position. This 
provides adequate assurance of the insertion capability of the 
control rod.
    Based on (1) the ability of control rod 26-47 to be inserted 
either manually or automatically, (2) the continued demonstration of 
the ability of control rod 26-47 to insert on a 31 day frequency, 
(3) the high level of assurance of continued operability of all 
control rods provided by SR 3.1.3.2 and SR 3.1.3.3, and (4) the 
benefits derived by limiting the unnecessary depletion of the 
neutron absorption capability of control rod 26 47, the benefits 
derived from revising the acceptance criterion of SR 3.1.3.3 for 
control rod 26-47 outweigh any risks associated with the proposed 
change. Therefore, the proposed amendment will provide assurance 
that control rod 26-47 remains operable while avoiding the negative 
consequences of unnecessarily inserting control rod 26-47.
    Based on the above, partial insertion of control rod 26-47 
versus insertion of one notch does not involve a significant 
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 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 May 22, 2000, 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.,

[[Page 21483]]

Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 
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 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 Corporate Secretary, Carolina Power & Light Company, Post Office 
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
    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 April 14, 2000, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of April, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Hansen,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-9965 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P