[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