[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