[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68702-68705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31760]


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

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 Florida Power Corporation (the licensee) for operation 
of Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) located in Citrus County, Florida.
    The proposed amendment would increase the licensed capacity for 
spent fuel assembly storage in the CR-3 Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) and 
revise the configuration for storage of fresh fuel.
    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.

[[Page 68703]]

    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. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to increase the 
onsite storage capacity of spent fuel and to revise the fresh fuel-
loading configuration. The licensee is replacing the existing spent 
fuel storage racks with new storage racks with a different neutron 
absorbing material. The licensee has reanalyzed the criticality of 
the revised storage configuration for fresh fuel. The replacement 
storage racks and the revised fuel storage configuration do not 
affect any structure, system or component, nor process related to 
the operation of CR-3. As a result, the proposed LAR will not change 
the probability or consequences of any accidents related to 
operation previously evaluated. Thus, only those accidents that are 
related to movement and storage of fuel assemblies could be 
potentially affected by the proposed LAR. Fuel handling accidents 
(FHA) are analyzed in Section 14.2.2.3 of the CR-3 Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR). These include a FHA inside the Reactor 
Building (RB) and a FHA outside the RB. The LAR involves storage of 
fuel assemblies, which is an activity conducted outside the RB only. 
Therefore, only the FHA outside the RB is potentially affected. The 
FHA outside the RB is postulated as the dropping of a fuel assembly 
into the spent fuel storage pool that results in damage to a fuel 
assembly and the release of the gaseous fission products. The 
current FHA assumes all 208 fuel pins in the dropped assembly are 
damaged. The results of that analysis demonstrate that the 
applicable 10 CFR 100.11 dose acceptance criteria are satisfied. 
Thus, the consequences of a FHA are not increased by the 
installation of the high-density racks. The high-density racks only 
increase the storage capacity and do not change the frequency or 
method for handling fuel assemblies. Thus, the probability of a FHA 
is not increased.
    The increased spent fuel storage capacity will result in a 
negligible increase in the heat input to the spent fuel pool and its 
cooling system. The limiting heat load is from the combined impact 
of stored fuel and a full core off-load. The full core off-load 
accounts for approximately 90% of that heat load. The increase in 
stored fuel capacity, numerically less than 10%, is comprised of 
fuel that has been stored the longest resulting in less decay heat. 
Thus, the impact of the increased spent fuel storage capacity on the 
total heat load is less than 1%.
    The increased fuel pool capacity and the revised fuel loading 
configuration do not increase the probability of a full core off-
load.
    The FSAR specifies the normal upper limit of the fuel pool 
cooling system as 160 deg.F. Administrative controls regarding when 
fuel movements from the reactor to the fuel pool can be completed 
are implemented to assure this upper limit is not exceeded.
    Because neither the probability nor the consequences of a FHA 
are increased, and because there is not any significant additional 
heat input to the spent fuel pools, it is concluded that the LAR 
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?
    Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pools 
is a normal activity that CR-3 has been designed and licensed for. 
As part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed 
without endangering public health and safety, the ability of CR-3 to 
safely accommodate different possible accidents in the spent fuel 
pools such as dropping a fuel assembly or the misloading of a fuel 
assembly have been analyzed. The increased spent fuel pool storage 
capacity proposed by the LAR does not change the methods of fuel 
movement or fuel storage. Thus, the proposed LAR does not create any 
new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
    The process of replacing the storage racks will involve removing 
the existing racks from the pool and installing new racks. These 
movements of the storage racks will be performed with the racks 
empty of all fuel. Even empty, these racks are of such weight as to 
be considered heavy loads. Movement of these empty racks create the 
potential for a heavy load drop. Movement of these empty racks will 
be restricted such that they will not be moved over any spent fuel 
stored in the spent fuel pools without the missile shields installed 
over the spent fuel pools. This will eliminate the potential for a 
rack to impact stored fuel if it were dropped.
    Because only activities currently performed at CR-3 are 
affected, i.e., the same types of activities will be performed with 
the increased onsite fuel assembly storage capacity and revised 
configuration for fresh fuel storage, the LAR does not create the 
possibility of any new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    The CR-3 Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) specifies 
required margin to criticality (subcriticality margins) for the 
spent fuel storage racks when fully loaded with spent fuel. This 
margin is having the effective neutron multiplication factor, 
Keff, of the spent fuel storage racks maintained less 
than or equal to 0.95 when flooded with unborated water. The LAR 
proposes no change to this margin. The new racks have been analyzed 
to demonstrate that this required margin is satisfied when fully 
loaded with fuel enriched to the maximum enrichment allowed by the 
CR-3 license. Maintaining this margin is assured by remaining within 
the limits on initial enrichment and fuel burnup that are specified 
in the ITS. These limits must be complied with before the fuel can 
be stored in the spent fuel pool. The LAR proposes revised limits on 
fuel burnup (no change to fuel enrichment is proposed) to ensure 
that the existing subcriticality margins are not reduced.
    The current CR-3 licensing basis, as reflected by the Final 
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), allows the use of administrative 
controls, e.g., curves of initial fuel assembly enrichment versus 
burnup, as a means of preventing criticality in the spent fuel 
pools. The use of these curves would be continued under this 
proposed amendment. The changes to these curves proposed by this LAR 
consist of revising the values of burnup and adding notes to 
restrict loading of certain fuel assemblies to specific 
configurations. These curves have been included in the CR-3 
operating license and their use implemented by site procedures since 
initial issue of the license. From this previous use CR-3 personnel 
are familiar with the practice of using administrative controls as 
curves of fuel assembly enrichment versus burnup for placing fuel 
assemblies in the spent fuel pool in order to prevent criticality. A 
mis-loaded fuel assembly was analyzed. The analysis demonstrated 
that misloading of one assembly does not result in exceeding the 
criticality margin regulatory limit of Keff = 0.95. This analysis 
assumed no neutron poison, i.e., soluble boron, in the spent fuel 
pool water. This is a conservatism since the license requires a 
minimum of 1925 ppm boron. (Typically the fuel pool water contains 
approximately 2000 ppm boron.)

    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

[[Page 68704]]

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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after 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 January 7, 2000, 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. 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 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 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, 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 balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on 
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of 
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of 
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in 
controversy among the parties.''
    The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on 
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's 
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual 
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with 
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those 
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing 
after oral argument.

[[Page 68705]]

    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under 
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing 
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for 
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be 
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing 
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely 
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely 
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the 
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing 
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If 
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing 
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid 
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time 
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to 
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, 
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the 
general procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 16, 1999, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publically 
available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS 
Public Library component on the NRC Web Site, http://www.nrc.gov (the 
Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of December 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard P. Correia,
Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-31760 Filed 12-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P