[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29140-29142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14391]




[[Page 29140]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-335]


Florida Power and 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-67, issued to Florida Power and Light Company, (the licensee), for 
operation of the St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 1 located in St. Lucie 
County, Florida.
    The proposed amendment would reduce the stated value of design 
reactor coolant flow from 355,000 gpm to 345,000 gpm, revise the 
reactor core thermal margin safety limits shown in FIGURE 2.1-1, and 
modify the reactor coolant system total water and steam volume 
described in the design features. The amendment also reduces the 
Limiting Safety System Setting for the reactor coolant low flow trip 
function from greater than or equal to 95% to greater than or equal to 
93% of design reactor coolant flow. Finally, TS 2.1.1 is modified to 
limit reactor power to less than or equal to 90% rated thermal power 
for Cycle 14 operation exceeding mid-cycle fuel burn up conditions. The 
revisions are being made to support changes in the safety analyses 
which accommodate a larger number of plugged steam generator tubes.
    On April 29, 1996, St. Lucie Unit 1 entered a scheduled refueling 
outage. A margin of approximately 14% existed between the average 
number of steam generator (SG) tubes that had been previously removed 
from service and the number of plugged tubes assumed in the safety 
analyses. Based on a 10-year history of 100% Eddy Current Testing 
(ECT), and including additional inspection commitments pursuant to 
generic letter (GL) 95-03, ``Circumferential Cracking of Steam 
Generator Tubes,'' the number of tubes conservatively estimated to be 
removed from service during this outage was far less than the remaining 
analytical margin.
    Based on meetings and conversations with NRC staff subsequent to 
entry into the outage, concerns involving the qualification of 
techniques for sizing SG tube crack-like indications were identified, 
resulting in the staff questioning the SG tube repair criteria which 
have been in place at Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) since 1985. 
On May 14, 1996, FPL agreed to implement a more conservative criteria 
for the Cycle 14 inspection. The licensee's assessment of the impact of 
implementing this criteria indicates that the number of SG tubes to be 
plugged may exceed the existing 25% (average) analyses limit.
    The change in repair criteria and the magnitude of resultant SG 
tube plugging could not have been reasonably anticipated prior to NRC 
staff concerns having been communicated to FPL during the recent 
meeting and discussions. The need for an amendment to implement revised 
St. Lucie Unit 1 power and RCS flow limits could not have been 
anticipated prior to assessing the impact of the change in repair 
criteria following FPL's meeting and discussions with the NRC staff. 
The necessary evaluations and preparation of the proposed license 
amendment were initiated without delay and at the earliest practical 
time. Analyses and quality assurance verifications to support the 
proposed license amendment were completed in an expeditious manner, and 
were performed in parallel with the ongoing tube examinations.
    FPL expects to complete the refueling overhaul and the required 
startup preparations by June 20, 1996. Until a license amendment is 
issued to authorize operation with the proposed changes, resumption of 
St. Lucie Unit 1 power operations will be prevented by the current 
Technical Specifications.
    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) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment defines reactor core thermal margin 
safety limits for a reduced value of design reactor coolant flow, 
and establishes a revised Limiting Safety System Setting (LSSS) for 
the protective system low flow trip. As core protection variables, 
these limiting parameters are not accident initiators and do not 
affect the frequency of occurrence of previously analyzed 
transients. The design features' total water and steam volume 
revision accounts for steam generator tube plugging and is simply 
administrative in nature. Evaluations performed to assess the impact 
of the proposed amendment conclude that, when considering a unit 
derate to 90% rated thermal power for operation beyond 7000 EFPH in 
Cycle 14 as required by the proposed change to TS 2.1.1, the 
potential radiological consequences of previously analyzed 
transients will conservatively remain within established acceptance 
criteria. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with 
this amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    (2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment revises limiting parameters to assure 
safe operation commensurate with the impact of steam generator tube 
plugging, and will not change the modes of operation defined in the 
facility license. The analysis of transients associated with steam 
generator failures are part of the design and licensing bases. 
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The proposed amendment allows full power operation at an RCS 
flow commensurate with 30% (average) steam generator tube plugging 
for Cycle 14 fuel batch average burn up conditions corresponding to 
mid-cycle. For operation beyond mid-cycle, reactor power will be 
restricted to less than or equal to 90% rated thermal power. An 
evaluation of limiting events to established acceptance criteria for 
Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDL), primary and 
secondary over pressurization transients, 10 CFR 50.46(b) emergency 
core cooling systems acceptance criteria, peak containment pressure, 
potential radiation dose during accidents, and to TS Limiting 
Conditions for Operation has been completed in support of this 
amendment request. The evaluation concludes, when considering the 
proposed LSSS for the Low Flow trip, that a conservative margin to 
acceptable limits remains available. Therefore, operation of the 
facility in accordance with this proposed amendment would not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 29141]]


    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 15 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 15-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 15-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 June 24, 1996, 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 Indian River Junior College Library, 3209 
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34954-9003. 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: Docketing and 
Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of 
the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so 
inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 
1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
following message addressed to Frederick J. Hebdon: petitioner's name

[[Page 29142]]

and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 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 Harold F. Reis, Esquire, Newman; and Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20036, 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 June 1, 1996, 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 Indian River Junior College Library, 3209 
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 34954-9003.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard A. Wiens,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-14391 Filed 6-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P