[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60731-60733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29714]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-302]
Florida Power Corporation; 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 (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR 72, issued to the Florida Power Corporation, (FPC or the licensee),
for operation of the Crystal River Nuclear generating Unit 3 (CR3)
located in Citrus County, Florida.
The proposed amendment addresses the methodology for post-loss of
coolant accident (LOCA) boron precipitation prevention for CR-3. FPC
concludes
[[Page 60732]]
that the change in boron precipitation prevention methodology
represents an unreviewed safety question (USQ) in that it involves a
change in the previously NRC-approved methodologies by incorporating
credit for hot leg nozzle gaps into its design and licensing basis as a
qualified passive method for boron precipitation mitigation under
certain scenarios. Therefore, this action requires NRC approval.
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 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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This LAR [license amendment request] addresses the methodology
that will be used following a design basis LOCA to ensure that the
boron concentration in the reactor vessel does not reach the
solubility limit during long term cooling. This methodology utilizes
systems and procedures that will be implemented following the
previously evaluated accident (i.e., a LOCA). This proposed change
does not result in any modifications to the plant or change in a
procedure that is used prior to the postulated accident; therefore,
these changes cannot result in an increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
The methodology in this LAR will be implemented to ensure that
boron precipitation, which may interfere with long term cooling,
will not occur following a design basis LOCA. This methodology
consists of systems and procedures to provide additional defense in
depth that for varying plant conditions will prevent the boron
concentration in the RV [reactor vessel] from reaching the boron
solubility limits. Evaluations are provided in this submittal that
conclude that these methods are effective.
By ensuring that boron solubility limits are not reached in the
RV, the analyses for the ECCS [emergency core cooling system] that
ensure adequate core cooling following a design basis LOCA remain
applicable. Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated are not increased and offsite dose consequences remain a
small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 limits.
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes reflect the methodology that will be used
for CR-3 following a design basis accident to prevent a boron
precipitation event, which previously has been evaluated. The
proposed LAR does not involve any new accident initiators nor any
modification to the plant nor a change in the operation of the plant
prior to the postulated design basis LOCA. Therefore, the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
This change does not result in a reduction to the margin of
safety for any accident. The proposed LAR ensures adequate defense
in depth in that systems and procedures available following a design
basis LOCA will prevent the precipitation of boron in the RV
[reactor vessel] that could interfere with ECCS flow.
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. 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
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications 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 6D22, 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 December 12, 1997, 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 Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal
Street, Crystal River, Florida.
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
[[Page 60733]]
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 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 R. Alexander Glenn, General Counsel,
Florida Power Corporation, MAC--A5A, P. O. Box 14042, St. Petersburg,
Florida 33733-4042, 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 October 31, 1997, 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 Coastal Region Library, 8619 W.
Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of November 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan, Sr.,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-29714 Filed 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
