[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4246-4249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1861]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 251]


Turkey Point Plant; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to Florida Power & Light, for operation of 
the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4 located in Miami-Dade County, 
Florida.
    The proposed amendments would increase the total spent fuel wet 
storage capacity for each unit, by adding a spent fuel storage rack in 
the cask area in each unit's spent fuel pool (SFP). Each rack will 
increase the respective unit's storage capacity by 131 fuel assemblies. 
The proposed license amendments also revise the location called out in 
the Design Features sections 5.6.1.1a and b of the Technical 
Specifications referring to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
Appendix 14D rather than referring to Westinghouse Report WCAP-14416-P.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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 title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Sec.  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

[[Page 4247]]

hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed change to increase the spent fuel storage 
capacity with cask area racks was evaluated for impact on the 
following previously evaluated events:
    a. A fuel handling accident (FHA)
    b. A heavy load drop into the cask area
    c. A loss of SFP cooling
    d. A stored fuel criticality event
    e. A seismic event
    The probability of a fuel handling accident is not significantly 
increased by the proposed change, because the same equipment (e.g., 
the spent fuel handling machine) and procedures will be used to 
handle fuel assemblies and the frequency of fuel movement will be 
essentially the same, with or without cask area racks. The FHA 
radiological consequences are not significantly increased because 
the source term of a single fuel assembly will remain unchanged, and 
the cask area racks will be installed at the same water depth as the 
existing SFP racks, with the same iodine decontamination factors 
assumed in the FHA analysis. The structural consequences of dropping 
a fuel assembly on a cask area rack were also found to be no more 
severe than those in the current FHA analysis.
    The probability and consequences of a heavy load drop of the 
cask area rack are bounded by the existing cask drop analyses. The 
consequences are not adversely affected because a fuel transfer cask 
is much heavier than the empty rack. The probability of such an 
event is not adversely affected because adding a cask area rack will 
postpone the need for cask handling operations by extending the 
spent fuel storage. The cask area rack will be removed prior to any 
cask handling operations, such that a cask drop scenario onto a cask 
area rack loaded with fuel is not credible. Therefore, the 
probability and the consequences of a heavy load drop in the cask 
area are not significantly increased.
    The probability of a loss of SFP cooling is unaffected and its 
consequences are not significantly increased with cask area racks 
installed. The addition of a cask area rack has an insignificant 
impact on the total SFP decay heat load. With the cask area rack 
installed, loss of forced cooling results in a sufficient time-to-
boil for the operator to recognize the condition and establish SFP 
makeup to compensate for water lost due to pool bulk boiling, and 
thereby maintain a sufficient water blanket over the stored spent 
fuel.
    The probability and consequences of a stored fuel criticality 
event are not increased by the addition of a cask area rack. The 
reactivity analysis for the new racks demonstrates the storage 
configuration remains subcritical for the worst-case fuel 
mispositioning event, with credit for soluble boron.
    The probability of a seismic event is unaffected and its 
consequences are not significantly increased with cask area racks 
installed, because the structural analysis of the new racks 
demonstrates that the fuel storage function of the rack is 
unimpaired by loading combinations including seismic motion, and 
there is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack and 
adjacent structures.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed amendments 
do not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The proposed change to add a cask area rack to each unit 
does not alter the equipment credited in the mitigation of design 
basis accidents, nor does the proposed change affect any of the 
important parameters required to ensure the safe storage of spent 
fuel. A new rack material (BoralTM) is introduced into 
the pool under this change, but based on its operating history in 
SFPs, there are no mechanisms that create a new or different kind of 
accident.
    The potential for dropping the new rack during installation or 
removal is bounded by the existing analysis for dropping a spent 
fuel transfer cask into the cask area. The same equipment (e.g., the 
spent fuel handling crane) and procedures will be used to handle 
fuel assemblies for the new cask area racks as are used for existing 
spent fuel storage. The fuel storage configuration in the new racks 
will be similar to the configuration in the existing SFP storage 
racks, and a fuel drop or mispositioning event in the new racks does 
not represent a new or different kind of accident from fuel handling 
and mispositioning events previously evaluated. Therefore, the 
proposed amendments will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    No. The effect of the proposed change on current margins of 
safety was evaluated for spent fuel storage functionality and 
criticality, spent fuel and SFP cooling, and structural integrity of 
the spent fuel pool. The design of the new racks uses proven 
technology which preserves the proper safety margins for spent fuel 
storage to provide a coolable and subcritical geometry under both 
normal and abnormal/accident conditions. The design complies with 
current regulatory guidelines and the ANSI [American National 
Standards Institute] standards, including 10 CFR 50 Appendix A 
General Design Criterion (GDC) 62, NUREG-0800 section 9.1.2, the OT 
Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and 
Handling Applications, Regulatory Guide 1.13, and ANSI/ANS [American 
Nuclear Society] 8.17. Handling the racks in accordance with the 
defense-in-depth approach of NUREG-0612 with temporary lift items 
designed to [American National Standards Institute] ANSI N14.6 
preserves the proper margin of safety to preclude a heavy load drop 
in the cask area.
    The cask area rack criticality analysis demonstrates that the 
neutron multiplication factor is maintained below 1.0, without 
credit for soluble boron, and less than or equal to 0.95 when credit 
is taken for the 650 ppm [parts per million] of soluble boron 
required for the existing SFP storage racks. The structural analyses 
for the new racks and adjacent structures show that the rack and 
surrounding structures are unimpaired by loading combinations during 
seismic motion, and there is no adverse seismic-induced interaction 
between the rack and adjacent racks or structures. Based on these 
evaluations, operating the facility with the proposed amendments do 
not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

    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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve 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 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public

[[Page 4248]]

Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By February 27, 2003, 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,\1\ which is 
available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, or 
electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in accessing the 
document, contact the Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most recent version of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the 
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), 
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. For the complete, 
corrected text of 10 CFR 2.714(d), please see 67 FR 20884 (April 29, 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PDR, 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of the 
continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government 
offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and 
requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission 
either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail 
to [email protected]. A copy of the petition for leave to intervene 
and request for hearing should also be sent to the Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail 
to United States Government offices, it is requested that copies be 
transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 
or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to M.S. 
Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, 
Florida 33408-0420, 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.''

[[Page 4249]]

    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.
    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 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 
usual procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated November 26, 2002, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of January, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eva A. Brown,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-1861 Filed 1-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P