[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11580-11581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5273]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-302, License No. DPR-72; Docket No. 50-302, NRC-2010-
0096]


Florida Power Corporation, City of Alachua, City of Bushnell, 
City of Gainesville, City of Kissimmee, City of Leesburg, City of New 
Smyrna Beach and Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach, City 
of Ocala, Orlando Utilities Commission and City of Orlando, Seminole 
Electric Cooperative, Inc., Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating 
Plant; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated December 5, 2009, Mr. 
Thomas Saporito (petitioner) has requested that the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to the licensee for 
the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3). The 
petitioner requests that NRC take enforcement action against the 
licensee and issue a Confirmatory Order requiring that the licensee 
take the following actions at CR-3:
    1. Physically remove the outer 10 inches of concrete surrounding 
the CR-3 containment building from the top of the containment building 
to the bottom of the containment building and encompassing 360 degrees 
around the entire containment building;
    2. Test samples of the concrete removed from the CR-3 containment 
building for composition and compare the test results to a sample of 
concrete

[[Page 11581]]

from a similarly designed facility like the Florida Power and Light 
Company, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant;
    3. Maintain the CR-3 in cold-shutdown mode until such time as the 
licensee can demonstrate full compliance with its NRC operating license 
for CR-3 within the safety margins delineated in the licensee's Final 
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and within the CR-3 site-specific 
technical specifications; and
    4. Provide the public with an opportunity to intervene at a public 
hearing before the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to challenge 
any certification made by the licensee to NRC that it has reestablished 
full compliance with 10 CFR part 50 and the safety margins delineated 
in its FSAR and technical specifications.
    In addition, during the January 7, 2010, conference call, the 
petitioner supplemented his December 5, 2009, petition with a verbal 
request to require the licensee to reform the containment building with 
additional concrete. The Petition Review Board (PRB) determined that 
this request supplements Item 1.
    As the basis for the request:
    1. The petitioner stated that during a maintenance activity 
performed under the direction and authorization of the licensee to cut 
an opening in the CR-3 containment building for access to replace steam 
generator units, the CR-3 containment building was discovered to have 
one or more separations between the poured concrete perimeter wall of 
the containment building and the horizontally installed tendons placed 
from top to bottom around the containment building within 10 inches of 
the outermost part of the 42-inch thick concrete perimeter wall of the 
containment building. To date, the licensee has not been able to 
determine the ``root-cause'' of this structural failure.
    2. The petitioner stated that the licensee is currently engaged in 
conducting Impulse Testing of the remaining CR-3 containment building 
perimeter wall to determine if additional separations exist. However, 
the petitioner implies that the licensee's use of Impulse Testing is 
not sufficient to make such a determination. Notably, Impact Echo 
testing is used worldwide to determine concrete cracking and failures 
on public bridges and the like, but even this type of testing is not 
sufficient to fully validate the entirety of the CR-3 containment 
building. Moreover, the petitioner believes that even the use of 
destructive testing to make visual inspections of small areas of the 
CR-3 containment building is not sufficient to qualify the entirety of 
the containment building.
    3. The petitioner stated that removal of 10 inches of concrete from 
the outer part of the 42-inch containment building wall from top to 
bottom and 360-degrees around would effectively expose the entirety of 
the surrounding 5\1/4\-inch tendons and allow visual inspection of the 
inner side of the tendons to make certain that no separation between 
the tendons and the inner part of the concrete wall exist.
    4. The petitioner stated that removal of 10-inches of concrete from 
the outer part of the 42-inch containment building wall from top to 
bottom and 360 degrees around would ensure for the best possible 
adhesion of a new concrete pour to the existing inner concrete 
perimeter wall of the containment building.
    5. The petitioner stated that the licensee's FSAR requires that the 
CR-3 containment building be composed of a monolithic concrete 
perimeter wall. The petitioner believes that the only way the licensee 
can fully achieve compliance with its FSAR is to remove 10 inches of 
concrete from the outer part of the 42-inch containment building wall 
from top to bottom and 360 degrees around for proper visual inspect 
repair activities.
    Moreover, during the January 7, 2010, conference call, the 
petitioner implied that a design flaw may have occurred, meaning the 
actual design of this containment structure has those tendons placed 
within 10 inches of the exterior part of that 42-inch thick concrete 
wall; the design may itself be flawed and subject the entire structure 
to other cracks, fissures, and voids that the licensee simply cannot 
detect with any type of instrumentation to make certain of their 
nonexistence. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the CR-3 
containment building not only meet but exceed its original design basis 
as delineated in the FSAR.
    The PRB discussed the petitioner's request during internal meetings 
and made the initial PRB recommendation. The PRB's initial 
recommendation is as follows:
    <bullet> Item 1, as supplemented by the January 7, 2010, conference 
call, does not meet the NRC Management Directive 8.11, ``Review Process 
for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions'' (MD 8.11), criteria for further review 
under the 10 CFR 2.206 process in that sufficient facts have not been 
provided to support the request.
    <bullet> Item 2 does not meet the MD 8.11 criteria for further 
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process in that sufficient facts have not 
been provided to support the request.
    <bullet> Item 3 meets the criteria established in MD 8.11 for 
acceptance into the 10 CFR 2.206 process for the petition under 
consideration.
    <bullet> Item 4 does not meet the MD 8.11 criteria for further 
review under the 10 CFR 2.206 process in that the request has not 
specifically addressed an enforcement-related action.
    On February 2, 2010, the petition manager informed the petitioner 
of the PRB's initial recommendation and offered him a second 
opportunity to address the PRB. On February 12, 2010, the petitioner 
declined the opportunity to address the PRB and did not provide any 
additional information for the PRB's consideration. Therefore, the 
PRB's initial recommendation, as discussed above, is the PRB's final 
recommendation.
    NRC is treating Item 3 of the petitioner's request pursuant to 10 
CFR 2.206, ``Requests for Action under This Subpart.'' The request has 
been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation. As provided by Section 2.206, NRC will take appropriate 
action on this petition within a reasonable time. A copy of the 
petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD. Publicly 
available records related to this action will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (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 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdbda9bfe39fa8bea2b8bfaea88da3bfaee3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="700014025e2215031f05021315301e02135e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>. The 
ADAMS accession number for the incoming petition request is 
ML093430702.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of March, 2010.
    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-5273 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>