[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60733-60735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29715]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Operating License No. DPR-
72, License Condition 2.C.(5) and delete the requirement for 
installation and testing of flow indicators in the emergency core 
cooling system (ECCS) to provide indication of 40 gallons per minute 
flow for boron dilution. Approval of this amendment will also allow 
removal of the associated flow indicators, DH-45-FI and DH-46-FI, from 
the Crystal River 3 (CR3) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This 
Federal Register (FR) notice supersedes the previous notice 62 FR 43368 
dated August 13, 1997 in its entirety.
    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 License Amendment Request removes the Operating License 
Condition that requires flow indication in the ECCS system for boron 
dilution. Under certain post-accident scenarios, boron dilution 
actions could be required following design basis LOCAs [loss-of-
coolant-accidents] to ensure that boron precipitation does not occur 
within the reactor core. Since these methods involve post-accident 
conditions, they are not the initiators for any design basis 
accident. Removal of this requirement from the license condition 
does not involve a change in the Improved Technical Specifications. 
Since these instruments are no longer used for boron precipitation 
mitigation during a LOCA, abandonment or removal of flow indicators 
DH-45-FI and DH-46-FI does not increase the probability of an 
accident

[[Page 60734]]

because no previously evaluated accidents at CR-3 are initiated by 
DH-45-FI or DH-46-FI. Since DH-45-FI and DH-46-FI are attached to 
the outside of the DH [decay heat] System drop line and the 
Auxiliary Pressurizer Spray line, respectively, their removal will 
not change the design, material, or construction standards 
applicable to the DH System piping. Therefore, the removal of the 
requirement for this instrumentation does not increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    Removal of the requirement for the flow indicators does not 
change the effectiveness of the post-LOCA boron dilution 
capabilities at CR-3. Removal of DH-45-FI and DH-46-FI will not 
alter any assumptions made in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of any accident described in the FSAR nor will it 
affect any fission product barrier since the ECCS and containment 
systems will still perform to meet design requirements. Based on 
these conclusions, previously calculated 10 CFR [Code of Federal 
Regulations] Part 100 consequences have not changed as a result of 
this action.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The flow indicators are external to the DH System piping. They 
do not penetrate any piping so their removal cannot create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The function of 
the valve position indicator on each valve in the active mitigation 
paths provide the operators with indication of valve open/close 
status. The indicators do not actuate any systems, structures, or 
components that are credited with accident mitigation. They can not 
initiate a new or different kind of accident. The boron 
precipitation mitigation methods are all implemented after the 
accident has occurred. None of the mitigative methods are required 
before an accident. The DH System drop line and the Auxiliary 
Pressurizer Spray are used during the course of CR-3's normal 
operation. Those methods of operation have been evaluated in the 
development of previously approved licensing basis and found 
acceptable. Using these previously approved methods in these post-
accident conditions, elimination of the subject license condition 
language, and the utilization of the boron dilution mitigation 
methods does not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of design basis accident.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Mitigation of potential boron precipitation will be accomplished 
by a combination of active and passive methods already included in 
the CR-3 licensing basis. The margin of safety for being able to 
abate boron precipitation is improved through the utilization of 
multiple available options. Therefore, there is no reduction in the 
margin of safety as a result of not utilizing DH-45-FI and DH-46-FI.

    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 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

[[Page 60735]]

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. 97-29715 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P