[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34161-34163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3050]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]


Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to 
Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-71 and Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 issued to Carolina 
Power & Light Company (the licensee), for operation of the Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North 
Carolina.
    The proposed changes replace the existing requirement of Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.5, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage 
Detection Instrumentation,'' Required Action D.1, to enter Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 if required leakage detection 
systems are inoperable with the requirement to be in Mode 3 within 12 
hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours.

[[Page 34162]]

    The reason for the exigency is to fulfill the NRC's requirement for 
the request for exigent processing of the proposed amendments as 
indicated in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900, ``Operations--Notices of 
Enforcement Discretion [NOEDs],'' following NRC's granting of a verbal 
NOED on May 12, 2005 (documented in a letter to the NRC on May 13, 
2005).
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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 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 proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces the existing requirement of TS 
3.4.5, Required Action D.1 to enter LCO 3.0.3 if required leakage 
detection systems are inoperable with the requirement to be in Mode 
3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours. This is accomplished 
by deleting Condition D and including the ``all required leakage 
detection systems inoperable'' statement in Condition C.
    The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any 
plant structure, system, or component. As a result, no new failure 
modes of the RCS leakage detection systems are being introduced. 
Additionally, the RCS leakage detection systems have no impact on 
any initiating event frequency. Therefore, the proposed change 
cannot increase * * * the probability [of an accident] previously 
evaluated.
    The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent 
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of 
the fuel during the analyzed accident, the availability and 
successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in 
response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these 
actions are initiated. The RCS leakage detection systems do not 
perform an accident mitigating function. ECCS [emergency core 
cooling system], RPS [reactor protection system], and primary and 
secondary containment isolation actuations all occur based on high 
drywell pressure and/or low vessel water level. The proposed change 
has no impact on any setpoints or functions related to these 
actuations. Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase * * * the 
consequences [of an accident] previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates the unnecessarily restrictive 
shutdown requirements of entering LCO 3.0.3 when all TS required 
leakage detection systems are inoperable. No installed equipment is 
being operated in a different manner. There is no alteration to the 
parameters within which the plant is normally operated or in the 
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a 
result no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change maintains the existing level of safety by 
imposing shutdown requirements that are as conservative as those 
currently imposed by TS 3.4.4 for actual RCS operational leakage in 
excess of TS requirements. The net effect of this change is to allow 
a unit to operate for five additional hours in Mode 1 with no 
operable TS required leakage detection systems, while exiting the 
Mode of Applicability for RCS leakage detection instrumentation one 
hour earlier (i.e., 36 hours to be in Mode 4 versus 37 hours per the 
existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1). Elimination of the 
intermediate 7 hours to Mode 2 requirement, imposed by LCO 3.0.3, 
allows the unit to reach the Mode 3 from full power conditions in an 
orderly manner and without challenging plant safety systems. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 requests involve 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 amendments 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or

[[Page 34163]]

by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the 
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate 
order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
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/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on 
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts 
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 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.
    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.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to David T. Conley, 
Associate General Counsel II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service 
Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602, 
attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated May 17, 2005, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact 
the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 2005. For The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-3050 Filed 6-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P