[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35615-35617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17354]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-302]


Crystal River Unit 3; 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 Florida Power Corporation (the licensee), for 
operation of Crystal River Unit 3, located in Citrus County, Florida.
    The proposed amendment would allow operation with a number of 
indications previously identified as tube end anomalies (TEA) and 
multiple tube end anomalies (MEA) in the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) 
Once Through Steam Generator (OTSG) tubes. The duration of the proposed 
license amendment would be until CR-3's next refueling outage, 
currently scheduled for fall 1999. This proposed change may be 
necessary due to the potential condition of noncompliance with CR-3 
Improved Technical Specification 5.6.2.10.4.b. Such a condition may 
result from confirmation of an ongoing re-analysis of eddy current 
testing (ECT) data, of indications previously identified as TEAs and 
MEAs in the upper roll expansion of the OTSG upper tube sheet, as now 
being within the pressure boundary of the tubes.
    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:

    This change does not involve a significant hazards consideration 
for the following reasons:
    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This evaluation addresses the potential effects of operating 
with TEAs and MEAs within the pressure boundary cladding region. The 
indications remaining in service are within the upper end of the 
tube pressure boundary. Two accidents analyzed in the SAR [safety 
analysis report] must be evaluated: Steam Generator Tube Rupture and 
Main Steam Line Break.
    The steam generator tube rupture accident assumptions bound the 
possible effects of leaving these indications in service. A complete 
circumferential severance of a tube is assumed in the accident 
scenario. The location of these indications in the upper tubesheet 
precludes a tube rupture from occurring (the tubes are restrained by 
the tubesheet). Additionally, in the event of a complete 
circumferential severance, the tube will not retract from the 
tubesheet. Thus, the probability of occurrence of this accident is 
not increased by leaving these indications in service.
    The main steam line break accident is not initiated by the 
condition of the tubing. However, an assumption of one gpm primary-
to-secondary leakage through the OTSG is assumed in the MSLB [main 
steam line break] accident analysis. Calculated cumulative leakage, 
assuming all of the indications are leaking, is determined to be 
well below one gpm, thus the accident analysis initial assumptions 
bound the existing condition of the OTSGs. Thus, it is concluded 
that the probability of occurrence of a main steam line break is not 
increased by this change. Therefore, this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    No new failure modes or accident scenarios are created by 
allowing operation with TEAs and MEAs extending within the tubes' 
pressure boundary. The TEAs and MEAs remaining in service are within 
the upper end of the tube pressure boundary and even in the event of 
a complete circumferential severance, the tube will not retract from 
the tubesheet. Therefore, the tubesheet hoop effect will still act 
to minimize leakage. The postulated potential leakage generated from 
allowing these indications to remain in service is bounded by the 
CR-3 MSLB scenario. The MSLB scenario has been thoroughly evaluated 
and the potential damage to the steam generator tubes is not 
increased. This change does not increase the risk of a plant trip or 
challenge other safety systems. Therefore, this change does not 
create a possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Bases 3.4.12 contains relevant information pertaining to the 
limitations on RCS [reactor coolant system] leakage. These Bases 
discuss the one gpm primary-to-secondary leakage assumed for a main 
steam line break accident as well as the steam generator tube 
rupture accident. As discussed, the maximum calculated accident 
leakage, assuming all of these indications leak, is well below one 
gpm. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the ITS bases is 
not significantly reduced.

    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

[[Page 35616]]

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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 July 30, 1998 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 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, or 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

[[Page 35617]]

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 18, 1998, 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 23rd day of June 1998.

    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. 98-17354 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P