[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52167-52169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17971]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-302]


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-72 issued to the Carolina Power & Light Company (FPC, the licensee) 
for operation of the Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 3 (CR-3), 
located in Citrus County, Florida.
    The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) related to low pressure injection, reactor building spray, decay 
heat closed cycle cooling water, and decay heat seawater systems to 
extend the allowable completion time associated with one inoperable 
train of these systems.
    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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), section 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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Part of the proposed changes introduces a Condition for an 
inoperable LPI [low pressure injection] with an AOT [allowed outage 
time] of seven days, introduces another Condition for an inoperable 
BS train coincident with an inoperable Containment Cooling train 
with an AOT of 72 hours, and extends the AOT for one inoperable BS 
train, DC train, and/or RW train to seven days. These systems are 
not initiators for any accident previously evaluated. The 
consequences of an event during the extended Completion Time are no 
more severe than the consequences of the same event during the 
current Completion Time. Therefore, the consequences of an event 
previously analyzed are not increased, so the proposed change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Another part of the proposed changes eliminates second 
Completion Times from the CR-3 ITS [Improved TSs]. Second Completion 
Times are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As 
a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not 
affected. The consequences of an accident during the revised 
Completion Time are no different from the consequences of the same 
accident during the existing Completion Times. As a result, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by 
this change. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of SSCs [structures, systems, or components] from performing 
their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed 
changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the 
proposed changes do not increase the types or amounts of radioactive 
effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase 
individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. 
The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions and resultant consequences.
    The proposed editorial/administrative changes remove obsolete 
information and provide clarification. These changes do not affect 
any system that is an initiator for any accidents previously 
evaluated. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not affected. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of SSCs from performing their intended function to mitigate 
the consequences of an initiating event. The proposed editorial/
administrative changes do not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Further, the proposed editorial/administrative changes do not 
increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be 
released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or 
cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed 
changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. These changes do not alter any assumptions made in the 
safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    One part of the proposed changes introduces a Condition for an 
inoperable LPI with an AOT of seven days, introduces another 
Condition for an inoperable BS train coincident with an inoperable 
Containment Cooling train with an AOT of 72 hours, and extends the 
AOT for one inoperable BS train, DC train, and/or RW train to seven 
days. An evaluation presented in Reference 8.3, and accepted by the 
NRC, concluded that the extended Completion Time did not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. An analysis performed 
by FPC also drew the same conclusion. Therefore, extending the AOT 
to seven days for these components does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time from 
the CR-3 ITS does not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings or LCOs [limiting conditions for 
operation] are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected by this change. The proposed changes will not 
result in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design 
basis.
    Similarly, the proposed editorial/administrative changes do not 
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings or LCOs are determined. The safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by this change. As such, the proposed 
editorial/administrative changes will not result in plant operation 
in a configuration outside of the design basis.

[[Page 52168]]

    Therefore, the proposed change 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 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place 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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing 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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 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 
O1F21, 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 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 requestors/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 is aware and on which the 
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. 
The petition must include 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/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(c)(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,

[[Page 52169]]

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 January 22, 2007, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 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/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 6th day of September 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-17971 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P