[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43189-43191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21246]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (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 would revise the CR3 technical
specifications (TS) to extend the frequency for certain surveillances
related to the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). Specifically, TS
Surveillance Requirements (SR) 3.3.8.1, and SR 3.8.1.3, would be
revised to extend the channel Functional test surveillance frequency
and the EDG operation, respectively, from 31 days to 60 days. The
proposed TS amendment would be a one time change and applicable until
November 23, 1997.
Currently, CR3 is in a voluntary shutdown and is in Mode 5. As part
of its EDG load capacity upgrade program, the licensee originally
planned to replace the EDG radiator during its cycle 11R outage in
1998. The licensee has now determined that a potential exists for the
EDGs to exceed the design basis ambient temperature and as a result,
decided to implement the radiator replacement during the current
outage. Initially, the planned duration for these radiator
modifications was 25 days assuming a pre-fabricated radiator unit could
be used as the replacement radiator. As the final design and extent of
condition for the EDGs were determined, the licensee has discovered
that the pre-fabricated radiator design could not be used and the
radiator replacement involved more extensive fabrication than
originally anticipated. The licensee estimates that the revised work
scope may require 55 days, including the necessary post-modification
test for operability. This schedule is based on a continuous work
schedule, and contingency for rework, field challenges, or late
delivery of parts. Thus, the time required to do the modification work
exceeds the present TS surveillance interval.
The licensee believes that while it is possible to perform these
surveillances with one EDG inoperable, such an approach, however, would
not be
[[Page 43190]]
desirable. These surveillances will require approximately 2 to 8 hours
during which time potential exists for a condition where both EDGs
could become inoperable at the same time. With both EDGs inoperable, a
loss of the operating Decay Heat Removal (DHR) capability would occur
during a loss of offsite power (LOOP), resulting in a heatup of the
reactor coolant system and reliance on the operable steam generator
steaming via the Atmospheric Dump Valves. Thus, simultaneously having
one EDG inoperable due to radiator replacement and performing the
monthly surveillances on the other EDG would reduce the overall
defense-in-depth due to the potential consequences of a LOOP. In
addition to a LOOP, the plant configuration requires bypassing the
undervoltage (UV) relays while performing these surveillance
procedures. The licensee states that based on its previous experience,
bypassing of the UV relays may potentially result in a lockout of the
power source and cause a loss of DHR capability.
To avoid such reductions in the defense-in-depth associated with
performing the surveillance tests, and to complete the necessary
modifications during this current outage, the licensee requests NRC
approval for a one time change to its TS SR.
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.
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 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. The proposed change will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
An increase in the surveillance interval from 31 days to 60 days
does not significantly decrease the reliability of the EDGs nor
degrade their ability to perform their intended safety function when
required. Based on data obtained over time the EDGs at CR-3 have an
excellent record of availability. This extension of the interval
will be applied to only one surveillance interval on each EDG and
will not be in effect after November 23, 1997.
CR-3 obtains data from surveillance testing and operational
experience and maintains records of the unavailability of the EDGs
and the relays. CR-3 monitors a parameter referred to as
Unavailability Performance Indicator, defined as the sum of known
and estimated unavailable hours divided by hours system required.
As a limited scope effort the records for 1994 through June,
1997 were reviewed. This data indicates very low values of the
performance indicator, with the average value for the 14 quarters
being 0.005. The yearly goal for this performance indicator was met
in the years reviewed. In total these records reflect low
unavailability; i.e., high availability.
The EDG that is to remain operable during radiator replacement
on the other diesel will be surveilled in accordance with SR 3.3.8.1
and SR 3.8.1.3 just prior to initiation of the EDG outage. This test
will ensure its operability.
Based on the high availability of the EDGs at CR-3 and the fact
that this is a one-time extension of the interval for each EDG, it
is concluded that this requested extension of the surveillance
interval will not result in a significant increased probability or
consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
2. The proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
This request for technical specification changes addresses the
interval for performance of the surveillances on a one-time basis
for each diesel generator. This requested change to the license by
itself does not involve a modification to the EDG. The modifications
of the EDGs to replace the radiator have been evaluated pursuant to
10 CFR 50.59. The conclusion of that evaluation is that the radiator
replacement does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above FPC concludes that changing the surveillance
frequency will not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident.
3. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction
to the margin of safety.
As discussed above in item number one, the EDGs at CR-3 have a
record of high availability. The high availability reflected in
those records provides reasonable assurance that the operable EDGs
will remain operable during the extended interval between
surveillances. By not being required to perform the tests FPC will
maintain a higher level of safety than would be possible if the
tests were performed. Based on the high availability of the EDGs and
the fact that this extension of the surveillance frequency is for
one interval only FPC concludes that changing the surveillance
interval does not result in a significant reduction to 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 request involves 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 amendment 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
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 September 11, 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
[[Page 43191]]
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 34428. 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 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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 August 4, 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 34428.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of August 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. 97-21246 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
