[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