Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices 60733

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

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).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 31, 1997,

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 5th day

of November 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan, Sr.,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29714 Filed 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

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 the Florida Power

Corporation (FPC or the licensee), for

operation of the Crystal River Nuclear

Generating Unit 3 (CR3) located in

Citrus County, Florida.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Operating License No. DPR–

72, License Condition 2.C.(5) and delete

the requirement for installation and

testing of flow indicators in the

emergency core cooling system (ECCS)

to provide indication of 40 gallons per

minute flow for boron dilution.

Approval of this amendment will also

allow removal of the associated flow

indicators, DH–45–FI and DH–46–FI,

from the Crystal River 3 (CR3) Final

Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This

Federal Register (FR) notice supersedes

the previous notice 62 FR 43368 dated

August 13, 1997 in its entirety.

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.

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. Does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

This License Amendment Request removes

the Operating License Condition that requires

flow indication in the ECCS system for boron

dilution. Under certain post-accident

scenarios, boron dilution actions could be

required following design basis LOCAs [lossof-coolant-accidents] to ensure that boron

precipitation does not occur within the

reactor core. Since these methods involve

post-accident conditions, they are not the

initiators for any design basis accident.

Removal of this requirement from the license

condition does not involve a change in the

Improved Technical Specifications. Since

these instruments are no longer used for

boron precipitation mitigation during a

LOCA, abandonment or removal of flow

indicators DH–45–FI and DH–46–FI does not

increase the probability of an accident
60734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices

because no previously evaluated accidents at

CR–3 are initiated by DH–45–FI or DH–46–

FI. Since DH–45–FI and DH–46–FI are

attached to the outside of the DH [decay heat]

System drop line and the Auxiliary

Pressurizer Spray line, respectively, their

removal will not change the design, material,

or construction standards applicable to the

DH System piping. Therefore, the removal of

the requirement for this instrumentation does

not increase the probability of an accident

previously evaluated.

Removal of the requirement for the flow

indicators does not change the effectiveness

of the post-LOCA boron dilution capabilities

at CR–3. Removal of DH–45–FI and DH–46–

FI will not alter any assumptions made in

evaluating the radiological consequences of

any accident described in the FSAR nor will

it affect any fission product barrier since the

ECCS and containment systems will still

perform to meet design requirements. Based

on these conclusions, previously calculated

10 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Part

100 consequences have not changed as a

result of this action.

2. Does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated.

The flow indicators are external to the DH

System piping. They do not penetrate any

piping so their removal cannot create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident. The function of the valve position

indicator on each valve in the active

mitigation paths provide the operators with

indication of valve open/close status. The

indicators do not actuate any systems,

structures, or components that are credited

with accident mitigation. They can not

initiate a new or different kind of accident.

The boron precipitation mitigation methods

are all implemented after the accident has

occurred. None of the mitigative methods are

required before an accident. The DH System

drop line and the Auxiliary Pressurizer Spray

are used during the course of CR–3’s normal

operation. Those methods of operation have

been evaluated in the development of

previously approved licensing basis and

found acceptable. Using these previously

approved methods in these post-accident

conditions, elimination of the subject license

condition language, and the utilization of the

boron dilution mitigation methods does not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of design basis accident.

3. Does not involve a significant reduction

in the margin of safety.

Mitigation of potential boron precipitation

will be accomplished by a combination of

active and passive methods already included

in the CR–3 licensing basis. The margin of

safety for being able to abate boron

precipitation is improved through the

utilization of multiple available options.

Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin

of safety as a result of not utilizing DH–45–

FI and DH–46–FI.

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

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 Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

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 6D22, 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 December 12, 1997, 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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 1997 / Notices 60735

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

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).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated October 31, 1997,

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 5th day

of November 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan, Sr.,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29715 Filed 11–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

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 the Florida Power

Corporation, (FPC or the licensee), for

operation of the Crystal River Nuclear

Generating Unit 3 (CR3) located in

Citrus County, Florida.

The proposed amendment involves a

revision to the CR3 Technical

Specifications (TS) relating to decay

heat removal requirements in Mode 4.

The proposed modification will revise

the TS and associated Bases to require

in Mode 4, one operable emergency

feedwater (EFW) train and associated

equipment, including the EFW tank,

emergency feedwater initiation and

control actuation instrumentation for

EFW, post accident monitoring

instrumentation, and the turbine bypass

valves. Additionally, the TS and

associated Bases would be revised to

require in Mode 4, a low-pressure

injection (LPI) train, dedicated to the

borated water storage tank, and to reflect

that the available loops for decay heat

removal do not include this dedicated

LPI train. Editorial changes would also

be made to clarify the description of

Mode 4 accidents requiring emergency

core cooling system injection, and to

revise the title of TS limiting condition

for operation 3.7.5.

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.

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. The proposed ITS [Improved Technical

Specifications] changes and operator actions

involving mitigation of postulated Mode 4

LOCAs [loss-of-coolant-accidents] will not

result in a significant increase in the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated. The initiators of any accident

previously evaluated are not affected by the

proposed ITS changes and operator actions

involving mitigation of Mode 4 LOCAs.

Consequently, there is no significant impact

on any previously evaluated accident

probabilities.

The proposed ITS changes and operator

actions involving mitigation of Mode 4

LOCAs do not result in a significant increase

in the consequences of any accidents

previously evaluated. The proposed ITS

changes, modifications and operator actions

will not adversely affect the integrated ability

of any system to perform its intended safety

functions. Therefore, the combined ability of

these components, systems and actions to

mitigate the consequences of a Mode 4 LOCA

will continue to be maintained. In fact, the

collective impact of these ITS changes and

operator actions improves the capability of

CR–3 to mitigate Mode 4 LOCAs by requiring

additional equipment operable in Mode 4, by

reducing operator burden, and by decreasing

the time to initiate LPI. The proposed ITS

changes are either consistent with or exceed

the original licensing and design basis for

CR–3. In addition, the ITS changes and

operator actions do not affect the onsite or

offsite doses which remain well below 10

CFR Part 100 limits.

2. The proposed ITS changes and operator

actions do not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated. Since, the ITS

changes and operator actions do not involve

a different initiator for any accident

previously evaluated, they also do not create

any new kind of accident. Mitigation of Mode

4 LOCAs, utilizing manual actions, is already

part of the CR–3 licensing basis. Manual

operator actions necessary for the mitigation