[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54162-54163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27038]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-302]


Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Unit 3; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its 
regulations for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-72 issued to 
Florida Power Corporation, et al. (FPC or the licensee), for operation 
of the Crystal River plant, Unit 3, located in Citrus County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.D.1, ``Single Failure 
Criteria,'' which requires accident evaluation using the combination of 
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems assumed to be operative 
``* * * after the most damaging single failure of ECCS equipment has 
taken place.'' The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the 
single failure requirement for very low probability scenarios under 
certain circumstances. The exemption is limited to the systems required 
for the prevention of boron precipitation during the long term cooling 
phase of a loss of coolant accident. 10 CFR 50.46(b)(5) requires that 
the ECCS be capable of providing long-term core cooling. Post-accident 
boron precipitation is a potential, but unlikely, challenge to 
maintaining long-term core cooling.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated June 4, 1998. The staff, on its own 
initiative, proposed to extend the exemption to a potential single 
failure vulnerability not requested by the licensee in its application.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.D.1, is to 
ensure that reasonable assurance exists that long-term core cooling 
will be maintained following a loss of coolant accident. The exemption 
is needed because, with the postulation of certain single failures, 
approved active methods for boron precipitation control (decay heat 
Dump-to-Sump and Auxiliary Pressurizer Spray) may not be available 
until decay heat levels had decreased during one postulated scenario 
and manual repair actions were completed for the other postulated 
scenario. In the event of the low probability sequence of events which 
could lead to these conditions, the conservatisms present in the 
calculations that validate the active methods, and the timely actions 
FPC would take to restore an active mitigation method, assure adequate 
long-term core cooling is maintained. Therefore, the requirements of 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.D.1 are not necessary to provide 
reasonable assurance of long-term core cooling after a loss of coolant 
accident for the specific sequence of events covered by the licensee's 
exemption request.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that in the event of a loss of coolant accident that 
requires long-term cooling, prevention of boron precipitation would be 
assured by the conservatisms in the calculations and assumptions and 
ability to affect repairs if necessary to restore boron precipitation 
mitigation systems. These conservatisms are included in the assumptions 
for the value of boron solubility, calculations of decay heat 
generation rate, and the amount of boron precipitation necessary to 
prevent adequate core cooling. In addition, in the unlikely event that 
repairs are necessary, procedural guidance for these actions has been 
prepared and will be required to be maintained as a condition of the 
exemption.
    The proposed exemption will not result in an increase in the 
probability or consequences of accidents or result in a change in 
occupational or public dose since long-term core cooling would continue 
to be available if required. The amount of radioactive waste would not 
be changed by the proposed exemption. The proposed exemption would not 
affect the type or amount of radiological plant effluents nor cause any 
significant occupational exposures. Therefore, there are no significant 
radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
    The proposed exemption involves features located entirely within 
the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect 
non-radiological

[[Page 54163]]

plant effluents and has no other radiological environmental impact. 
Therefore, the proposed exemption does not result in any significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded that there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed exemption, the staff 
considered denial of the requested exemption. Denial of the request 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action 
are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to 
the Proposed Crystal River Unit 3,'' dated May 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 13, 1998, the staff 
consulted with William Passetti, Chief, Department of Health, Bureau of 
Radiation Control, in Florida, regarding the environmental impact of 
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 4, 1998, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, which is 
located at The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D. 
C., 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 28th day of September 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. 98-27038 Filed 10-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P