[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2423-2425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1046]


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

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 licensee proposed a revision to the description of the starting 
logic for the Reactor Building (RB) Recirculation System Fan Coolers, 
as discussed in the CR3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Chapters 
5, 6, 7 and 9, and Improved Technical Specification (ITS) Bases Section 
3.6. The change to the starting logic would ensure that only one RB Fan 
starts on an Engineered Safeguards (ES) Reactor Building Isolation and 
Cooling (RBIC) signal. A modification to the plant will install 
components that could increase the probability of occurrence of a 
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in 
the FSAR. FPC has determined that proposed changes to associated 
electrical controls involve an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ). 
Therefore, NRC review and approval are required.
    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. The 
licensee made its request on December 5, 1997, and as required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), and 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.
    The change to the starting logic for the RB Fans affects the ES 
equipment that responds to mitigate an accident. The RB Fans are not 
accident initiators and the change to the starting logic cannot 
initiate an accident. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an 
evaluated accident is not increased.
    The RB Fan start logic change selects an available RB Fan to run 
upon an RBIC actuation, but only allows the operation of one RB Fan 
to prevent overloading the SW [Nuclear Services Closed Cycle 
Cooling] System. The containment analysis for CR-3 assumes that one 
train of ES equipment is available for accident mitigation, 
specifically, one RB Fan and one RB Spray train for containment 
cooling. The combination of two RB Spray trains with no RB Fans is 
also evaluated and found to be acceptable. These available 
containment cooling equipment combinations represent the minimum 
that would be available for accident response both before and after 
the implementation of this change.
    In addition to the same equipment being available to mitigate an 
accident, there is no change to the analyzed containment response. 
The time delay in the start of an RB Fan of up to several seconds 
due to the modification has been evaluated through containment 
analysis sensitivity studies. The results of these studies show that 
containment peak pressure and temperature, and long term temperature 
profiles, are not affected. The consequences of an accident are 
directly related to containment pressure and temperature conditions. 
Since containment conditions following an accident are not affected 
by this modification, there will be no change to the consequences of 
any analyzed accident.
    2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The modification changes the RB Fan start logic in the event of 
an accident. The new start circuit ensures that one RB Fan is 
operating in response to an RBIC actuation, but prevents the 
operation of two fans. This modification prevents the thermal 
overloading of the SW System in order to preserve the operability of 
equipment cooled by the SW System. Several potential new failure 
modes were evaluated and determined not to create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident.
    Additionally, the RB Fans are engineered safeguards equipment 
designed to mitigate an accident, and the SW System is an accident 
mitigation support system. These systems are not accident 
initiators. The ES electrical busses and the EDG [emergency diesel 
generator] are not affected by this change. All containment design 
conditions are met with this change.
    Therefore, this change cannot create the possibility of an 
accident of a different kind than previously evaluated in the SAR.
    3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Technical Specification 3.6.6 states that two RB Spray trains 
and two RB containment cooling trains must be operable. This 
specification ensures diversity and redundancy of the containment 
cooling system. Following the modification, all margins will be 
maintained. Two RB Fans will be operable and capable of starting on 
an RBIC signal. The modified circuitry maintains the RB Fan 
redundancy. The RB Sprays are not affected by this modification.
    The margin of safety associated with the containment maximum 
pressure and temperature in response to a LOCA [loss-of-coolant 
accident] is not affected since any failure of this modification 
results in equipment combinations that have been analyzed and 
determined to be acceptable. Containment LOCA response sensitivity 
studies have verified that the small start delay, associated with 
the modified RB Fan start circuit, has no effect on the post-LOCA 
peak temperature and pressure in containment. Also, the failure of 
SW valves that results in the loss of the ability of the RB Fan 
Coolers to remove heat or the failure of either RB Fan to run, will 
not affect the containment peak temperature and pressure conditions 
since two trains of RB Spray are available.
    The proposed modification allows only one RB Fan to operate 
post-accident. This ensures that the SW System is not overloaded and 
SW temperatures remain within design basis limits. Therefore, there 
is no reduction in the margin of safety for the SW System equipment 
cooling function after the implementation of this change.
    The small additional electrical loads, and the out-of-sequence 
loading of an RB Fan associated with this change have been evaluated 
and determined to be within the load limits of the EDG and ES 
electrical busses. Therefore, there is no reduction in the 
electrical system margin of safety.
    Based on the above evaluation, there is no reduction in the 
margin of safety associated with the equipment and systems affected 
by this change.


[[Page 2424]]


    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 February 17, 1998, 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 
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

[[Page 2425]]

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 December 5, 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 9th day of January 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-1046 Filed 1-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P