ML20128Q764
| ML20128Q764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Saint Lucie |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1984 |
| From: | Sells D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A737 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-794 NUDOCS 8506040297 | |
| Download: ML20128Q764 (19) | |
Text
'
o
- 3
..-f590-01.
y,,,.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 9 FISSION
[.Ib 7/#
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY' ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-389 t/~k l
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMEN 0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ~ AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-16 issued to Florida Power and Light' Company, Orlando Utilities Comission of the City of Orlando, Florida. and Florida Municipal Power Agency (the licensee), for operation of the St. Lucia' Plant, Unit No. 2, located.in St. Lucie County, Florida.
The amendment wou.ld authorize the licensee to increase the spent fuel pool storage capacity from 300 to 1188, fuel assemblies. The total of 1188 is the ultimate c'apacity for this amendment and is attained when Region I is converted to a Region II configuration. This will change the storage capacity of Region-I from 224 spent fuel elements to 336. The proposed expansion is to be achieved by reracking the spent fuel pool into two discrete regions.
Region f includes six modules having a totai of 448 storage cells. Only one-half of these cells wiTT be available for the storage of fuel assemblies. The unused cells will be. provided with cell blocking devices and neutron absorbing "L" inserts. The 224 available cells in Region I will allow for the storage of unirradiated fuel assemblies with Uranium-235 enrichments up to 4.5%, while maintaining the required subcriticality of X,ff less than or equal to 0.95.
Region II includes thirteen modules having a total of 1136 storage cells of which 852 (75%) will be available for the storage of fuel assemblies. The-8506040297 841108 PDR FOIA ADATOB4-794 PDR V: :%.2 m 7' f qs.c
..u..ryQqga;s, qQ i-T %. ;. Wf:.&k';&k-?
o 0
. ~..,
~T~
i.., w :.;.:.
unused cells will act as' neutron flux traps to maintain the required subcriticality and wi11 be provided with cell blocking devices. The present racks have a center-to-center cell spacing of 14 inches. Under the proposed amendment, the nominal center-to-center spacing of the cells would be reduced to 8.96 inches There is currently no spent fuel in the St. Lucie 2 spent fuel pool, nor is there expected to be any when the new spent fuel racks are installed. This amendment was requested in the licensee's application for amendment dated March 13, 1984 The technical evaluation of whether or not an increased spent fuel pool storage capacity involves significant hazards consideration is centered on three standards:
(1) Does increasing the spent fuel pool capacity significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated?
Closer spacing of fuel assemblies doeg_not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed; (2) Does increasing the spent fuel storage capacity create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed? The staff has not identified any new categories or types of accidents ar a result of reracking to allow closer spacing for the fuel assemblies. The proposed reracking does not create the possibilty of a new or different-kind' of accident previously evaluated for the spent fuel p;ol.
In all reracking reviews completed to date, all credible accidents postulated have been found to be conservatively bounded by the evaluations cited in the safety,evaluationr reports supporting each amendment; and O
4 -
~
-1~
m, (3) Does increasing the spent fuel pool storage capacity significantly reduce a margin of' safety 7 The staff has not identified significant reductions in safety margins due to increasing the storage capacity of spent fuel pools.- The expansion may result in a minor increase in pool temperature by a few degrees, but this heat load increase is generally well within the design limitations of the installed cooling systems In some cases it may be necessary to increase the heat removal capacity by relative minor changer in the cooling system, i.e., by increasing a pump capacity.
But in ali cases, the temperature of the pool will remain below design values. The small increase in the total amount of fission products which are both volatile and radioactive in the pool is not a significant factor in accident considerations. The increased storage capacity may result in an increase in the pool reactivity as measured by the neutron multiplica, tion factor (X,ff). However, after extensi_ve study, the staff determined in 1976 that as long as the maximum neutron multiplication factor was less than or equal to 0.95, then any change in the pool reactivfty would 'not significantly reduce a margin of safety regardless of the storage capacity of the pool.
The techniques utilized to calculate K,ff have been bench-marked against experimentai data and are considered very reliable. Reracking to allow a cicser spacing between fuel assemblies can be done by proven technologies.
In sunnary,. replacing existing racks with a design which allcws closer l
spacing between stored spent fuel assemblies is considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations-if several conditions are met.
First, no new technology or unproven technology is utilized in either the l
j construction process or in the analytical techniques necessary to justify O
e
~#~
~
the expansion. S~econd, the K,ff of the pool is maintained less than or equai to 0.95. Reracking to allow closer spacing satisfies these criteria.
In addition, the storage expansion method consists of replacing existing racks with a design that allows. closer spacing between spent fuel assemblies and the expansion method does not involve rod consolidation or double tiering.
The licensee's submittal of March 13, 1984 included a dis.cussion of the proposed action with respect to the issue of no significant hazards consideration. This discussion has been reviewed and the Commission finds it acceptable. Pertinent portions of the licensee's discussion of this matter, addressing each of the three standards, is presented below.
The additional assemblies that can be stored will have a lower heat generation rate and radioactivity content than the assemblies currently allowed to be stored. However, the in_ crease in the total number of assemblies that can be stored will increase the total fuel pool heat load and radioactivity content but only by a small amoun,t. The replacement spent fuel storage rack modules are freestanding without depending on neighboring modules or the fuel pool walls for support. Racks of similar design have been licensed at other nuclear facilities. The use of two diverse regions is not unique and two region spent full pools have. been previously approved by the Comission.
First Standard:
Involva a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaTuated.
O
_...., a m.m..si.,&. -v.w.ng;nwasymy. -F :=WRT98km ~,._._
~-.
- w
.s_
The-analysis. of this. proposed reracking has been accomplished using current accepted codes, standards,. and NRC guidance as specified in Section 4.2 of' the Safety Analysis Report (SAR).
In the course of the analysis, FPL identified the following potential accident scenarios: (1) a spent fuel assembly drop in the spent fuel pool; (2) Toss of spent fuel pool cooling system flow; (3) an extreme wind or seismic event; and- (4) a. spent fuel cask. drop. The occurrence of these accidents is not affected by the racks-themselves. Thus, the proposed e
reracking cannot increase the probabfif ty of these accidents. Furthermore, the spent fuel racks will be installed prior to storage of any spent fuel in the spent fuel pool. Therefore, there is no potential for an accidant involving spent fuel during fuel rack installation.
Similarly, the analysis of the potential ac'cidents, sumarized below, has shown that there is no_ significant_ increase in the consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The consequences of a spent fuel assembly drop have been evaluated with respect to nuclear cr*f ticality (Section 3.1 of the SAR) and with respect to radioactivity release (Section 5.3 of the SAR).
The presence of baron in the spent fuel pool water ensures that the neutron multiplicatierr factor- (k,ff) remafnr less than the NRC' acceptance criterion of 0.95 for ali accident conditions. The consequencer of a dropped fuel l
assembly wittr respect to radioactivity release are not affected by the new fuel rack design itself. However, the analysis in Section 5.3 of the SAR included more ccnservative assumptions, relative to those in the previour i
l FSAR analysis, to bracket future changes to fuel management. As a result, T' W:A Q m m Q,Q Q Whf:.r& 54.Q.f. W.dk;._'.-i ^ n
~
'. c.s 4.-
"~
~
~
-G-the predicted radioactivity releases are about 25% larger than those reported previously, but the increases are not "significant" because the results are only 1% of NRC. guidelines. Thus,. the consequences of the spent fuel assembly dropt accident would not be significantly increased from those previously evaluated.
Total 1.oss of spent fuel pool cooling flow has been evaluated and is reported frr Sectiert 3.2 of the SAR. The structural integrity of the spent fuei pool will be maintained and no new means of losing cooling water or flow have been identified. As indicated in Section 3.2, more than 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> are available to restore cooling flow or to provide an alternate means for cooling before pool boiling results in a water level less than that which is needed to maintain acceptable radiation dose levels. Also, the analysis has shown that fuel cladding integrity is maintained. Thus, the consequencis of this type accident would not be signif_icantly increased from the previously evaluated loss of cooling system flow accident.
The consequences of a seismic event have been svaluated and are sum-marized in Section 4.3 of the SAR. The new racks are to be designed and fabricated to meet the guidance of applicable portions of the NRC Regulatory Guides and codes and standards listed in Section 4.2 of the SAR. The maximum stresses within the fuel racks will be within the criteria specified in Section 4.4 of the SAR. Also, movement and deflection of the fuel rack modules does not result in contact with neighboring rack modules or the fuel pool walls. The ficar loading from the new racks filled with spent fuel assemblier does not exceed the structural capacity of the fuel handling building. Therefore, the integrity of the pool will be maintained and no h
ap
- ;, 9 e
a
~I~
new-means of' losing cooling water or fTow have been identified. As indicated int Sectiort 4.1 of the SAR, the fuel handling b' ilding walls, u
floors, and partitions are designed to withstand hurricane and tornado winds; the protection froc these extreme winds is not affected by the new fuel rack design. Thus, the consequences of an extreme wind or seismic event would not be significantly increased from previously evaluated events The consequences of a spent fuei cask drop outside the Fuel Handling Bufiding has been evaluated and are reported in Section 5.3 of the SAR. As stated in Section 5.3, the spent fuel cask is prevented from dropping onto the spent fuel' pool racks by design of the fuel building and everhead crane.
Th,erefore, the consequences of the spent fuel cask drop are not affected by the new fuel rack design. The analysis in Section 5.3 includes more conservative assumptions, relative to those in the previous FSAR analysis, to bracket future-changes to fuel management. As a result, the predicted radioactivity releases are about 25% 1arger than those reported previously, but the increases are not "significant" because the'results are only 8% of NRC guidelines. Thus, the consequences of a cask drop accident would not be significantly increased from previously evaluated accident analysis.
It is concluded that the proposed amendment to rerack the spent fuel pools will not involve a significant increase in the probability or i
consequences of an accident previously evaluated l
Second Standard: Create-the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previcusly evaluated.
~
FP&L has evaluated the propcsed reracking in accordance with the
~
guidance of the NRC position paper entitled " Review and Acceptance of Spent 1
l l
l
~
e [h 9* en
,e*
- 5 f
L
r
.s y '~
w.
FueT Storage and. HandTing Applications", appropriate NRC Regulatory Guides, appropriate NRC Standard Review Plans, and appropriate Industry Codes and s
Standards. as listed in Section 4.2 of the SAR.
In addition, FP&L has reviewed several previous.NRC Safety Evaluation Reports for rerack applications similar to this proposal. As a result of this evaluation and these reviews, FP&L finds-that the proposed reracking does not, in any way, create the possibility of a new nor different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated for the Spent Fuel Pool or Fuel Handling Building. Neither the licensee or the staff could identify a credible mechanism for breaking the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool tha?.
would result in a loss of, cooling water such that cooling flow could not be maintained.
Third Standard:
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC Staff safety evaluation rey'f.N process has established that the issue of margin of safety, when applied to a reracking modification, will need to address the following areas:
1.
Nuclear criticality considerations q
t 2.
Thermal-Hydraulic considerations 3.
Mechanical, material and structural considerations.
The established acceptance c iterfon for criticality is that the neutron multiplication factor (k,ff) in, spent fuel pools shall be less than or cqual to 0.95, including all uncertainties, under all conditions. This margin of safety has been adhered to irr the criticality analysis methods for-
~
the new rack design as discussed in Section 3.1 of the SAR. That is, k,ff
' * ~ - -
,..y
- gry. -g,y.
...'=?
_S-is. always Tess. than 0.95, including uncertainties at the 9E/95 probability and confidence Tevel.
In-meeting the acceptance criteria for criticality in the spent fuel pool, the-proposed amendment to rerack the spent fuel pools does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for nuclear criticality.
Conservative methods were used to calculate the increase in temperature of the water in the spent fuel pooT and demonstrate maintenance of fuel cladding integrity. This evaluation uses the methods described in Section 3.2. of the SAR in demonstrating that the margins of safety are maintained.
The proposed reracking allows an increase in the heat load in the spent fuel pool; the evaluation shows that the existing spent fuel cooling system, under normal conditions, will maintain the pool temperature below the design basis limit, assuming the maximum heat load in the pool. Since the design basis limit is met, there is not a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Also, the maximum fuel cladding temperature, assuming total loss of fuel pool cooling, would remain below 275'F, ensurfng maintenance of fuel cladding integrity. Thus, there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety from a thennal-hydraulic or spent fuel cooling concern.
The main safety function of the spent fuel pool and the racks is to maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe configuration through all environments and abnonnal loadings, such as an earthquake, drop of a spent fuel assembly, or drop of any other object during routine spent fuel handling. The mechnical, material, and^ structural considera.tions of the proposed rerack are described in Sectiort 4 of the SAR. The analysis of Section 4 has shown that all criteria for fuel rack movement, stresses,
[w,
e
.[
-)'
h.
-e
10' -
fToor loadings, etc.,. are met and that margins of safety. are not significantly reduced As. previously stated, neither the licensee nor.the staff could identify a credible mechanism for breaking the structural integrity of the-spent fuel pool that couTd result in a loss of cooling water such that coo 11ng flow could not be maintained.
In summation, it has. been shown that FP&L's proposed spent fuel storage l
facility modifications and proposed technical specifications do not:
~
1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequences 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 fn a margin of safety.
Since the licensee's request to expand the St. Lucie 2 spent fuel storage pool capacity satisf.ies the fgliowing conditions: (1) The storage expansion' method consists of replacing existing racks with a design that allows closer spacing between stored spent fuel assemblies; (2) The storage expansion method does not involve rod consolidation or double tiering; (3)
The K,ff of the pool is maintained less than or equal to 0.95; and (4) No new technology or' unproven technology is utilized in'either the construction 1
process or the analytical techniques necessary to justify the expansion, the Commission regards the request not to' involve significant hazards consideration in that it: (1) does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) doer not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
% =.
- II -
accident previousTy avaTuated, and (3) does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Because the-submittal and above discussion by the licensee appear to demonstrate that the standards specified in 10 CFR 50.92 are met, and becauser reracking technology har been well developed and demonstrated, the Comission proposes to detemine that operation of the facility in l
accordance with the proposed amendment does; not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Comission is seeking public connents on this proposed detemination. Any coments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final detemination. The Connission will not normally make a final detemination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Connents should be addressed to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Wa'shington, D. C.
20555, ATTN: Docketing i
and Service Branch.
By August 16, 1984, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating l
Tfeenses and any person whose interest may bet affected by this proceeding i
l and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Connission's "Rul$r of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above.date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing J.._.
m L
Board, designated by the Consiission 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 12.714, 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 result's 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 rig,ht 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 thould also identify the specific aspect (s) of the sub,iect matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a pe'tition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (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. fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing
~
conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner is required to file a suppidnt to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity, pursuant to 10 I
e w,
+~w g-,I
CFR lZ.714(b)
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. 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 The Consnission hereby provides' notice that this proceeding is on an-appl-ication for a license amendment falling within the scope of Section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 510154. Under Section 134 of the NWPA, the Consnissiorr, at the request of any petitioner or party to the proceeding, is required to employ hybrid hearing procedures with respect to "any matter which the Consnission determines to be in controversy among the parties." Section 134 procedures provide for oral agrument on those issues " determined to be in controversy", preceded by discovery under the Rules of Practice, and the designation, followir:g argument, of only those. factual issues _ that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of law to be resolved at an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudtcatory hearings are to be held only on those issues found to meet the criteria of Section 134 and set for hearing after oral argument on the proposed issues. However, if no petitioner or party requests the use of the hybrid hearing procedures, then the usual 10 CFR Part.2 procedures apply.
(At this time,. the. Consnission does not have effective regulations implementing Section 134 of the NWPA although it has published' proposed rules. See Hybrid Hearing Procedures for Expansion of Onsite Spent Fuel Storage' Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors, 48 Fed. Reg. 54,499 (December 5,1983).)
-t-.
e
- 2..
Subject to the above requirements and any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding 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 Cannission will make a final determination on tha 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 effective, notwithstanding the reouest for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held'would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Cannission 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 faciTity, the Connission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its finai determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will consider all public and State connents received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a r.otice of issuance and m
M L--
provide for opportunity for a. hearing after issuance. The Comission expects that the need tar take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a-petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C'.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service
. Branch,. or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street,. N.W., Washington, D. C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so infonn the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to James R.
Miller: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and g_ age number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Of rector, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and~
to Mr. Harold F. Reis, Esq., Newnan and Holtzinger, P.C.,1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1224, Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, suppleinental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be
. entertained absent a determination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request. That 3 -
_ _ _ f ~. ' ~ ~.,
Y v ~ --[
' V :.2
" ' L.- ,9
'2'
~~
_ is _
w..,
determination wili be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v)and2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment that is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street,. N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Indian River Junior College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida 33450.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this lith day of July,1984.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION onald E. Sells, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division'of Licensing I
e J
9
'+
[s
-g a
e
,j
. 41538 Federal Redster / Vol 44, No.1a0 / Thursday, Septetnber 15, 1983 / Notices not be prepared la connection with this recommendation to monthly citing good why intervention should be peredtted cction.
operating experience and no sipi8 cant with particular reference to the his exemption is effective upon difference in the valve failure rate following factors:(1Th nature of the issuance.
between valves tested weeldy and taose petitioner's right under the Act to be Dated at Bethesda, Ms.ryland, this 3ist day tested monthly.
made a party to the proceeding; (2) the e change in tesdng 7 y does nature and extent of the petitioner's of A t 19s3.
not create the possibility of a new property. Snancial, or other interest in Fo e Nuclear Regulatory Comission, different kind of accident from any the proceeding: and (3) the possible Deneu a %
accident previously evaluated because it effect of any order which may be Director. Division o/l.icenemg, Office of does not modify the configuration of the entered in the proceeding on the NuclearRaoctorRegulatJon.
plant or the manner in which it is
' petitioner's interest.ne petition should N"*"""******"I operated.
also identify the specific aspect (s) of the same cosa moms bre is no reduction in the margin of subject matter of the proceeding as to safety expected because of the which petitioner wishes to intervene.
(Destet fee. 50-3001 reduction of this testing frequency, since Any person who has f!!ed a petition for the valve reliability or failure rates leave to intervene or who has baen Floride Power and Ught Co, et aL; remain unaffected when the testing admitted as a party may amend the Consideration of leeuence of frequency was increased from weekly to petition without requesting leave of the monthly.%erefore, based on this Board up to fifte' n (15) days prior to the Amendment to Facility Operating e
Ucense and Proposed No Significent consideration and the three criteria cited first prehearing conference scheduled in Haserds Consideradon Determination above,it is determined that this the proceeding, but such an amended and Opportunity for Heartng amendment request involves no petition must satisfy the specificity significant hazanis consideration.
requirements described above.
Commwian is suking public Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to Com o
e Comm seio )is d in th petidw Fc i rati cens ! o.N da a th of 1
8 hall I le a supplement to the petition to 18, issued to &rida Power and Light publication of this notice will be ntmm wMch must We a h d j
Company (FP&L), Orlando Utilities considered in making any final contenum wM are @ th Commission of the City of Orlando, determination.ne Commission will not litigated in the matter, and the bases for Fl:rida and mrida Municipal Power normally make a final determination each contendon udodh e Agency (the Licensees). for operation of unless it receivts a request for a reasonable specificity. Contentions shag th2 St. Lucie Plant. Unit 2. located in St.
hearing. Comments should be addressed be limited to matters within the scope of Lucie County, Florida.
to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
the amendment under consideration. A In accordance with the licensee's Nuclear Regulatory Commission, petitioner who fails to file such a application dated July 5.1983, the Washington, D.C. 20555. ATI'N:
supplent wMch udenu Gue j
amendment would change the Technical Docketing and Service Branch.
mquirents with rupect to at least one Specifications for St. Lucie 2 to decrease By October 17,1963, the licensee may C niendon wiu noO8 Pennitted to the frequency of testing the valves in the file a request for a hearing with respect turbine overspeed protection system to issuance of the amendment to the participate as a party.
from every seven days to once per subject facility operating license and Those permitted to intervene become month.
any person whose interest may be parties to the proceeding. subject to any Before issuance of the proposed affected by this proceeding and who limitations in the order granting leave to license amendment. the Commission wishes to participate as a party in the intervene, and have the opportunity to articipate fully in the conduct of the will have made findings required by the proceeding must file a written petition
{eering, including the oppodunity W At:mic Energy Act of 1954, as amended for leave to intervene. Request for n (tha Act) and the Commission's hearing and petitions for leave to present evidence and cross-namine agulations.
intervene shall be filed in accordance witnesen.
He Commission has made a proposed with the Commission's " Rules of If a hearing is requested. the Practice for Domestic Licensin Commission will make a final determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards Proceedingain to CFR Part 2.t determination on the issue of no ua c:nsideration. Under the Commission's request for a hearing or petition for significant hazards consideration. De regulations in to CMt 50.92, this means leave to intervene is filed by the above final determination will serve to decide th:t operation of the facility in date, the Commission or an Atomic when the hearing is held.
cccordance with the proposed Safety and Licensing Board, designated if the final determination is that the cmendment would not (1) involve a by the Commission or by the Chairman amendment request involves no significant increase in the probability or of the Atomic Safety and Licensing significant hazards consideration, the consequences of an accident previously Board Panel.will rule on the request Commission may issue the amendment evaluated: or (2) create the possibility of and/or petition and the Secretary or the and make it effective, notwithstanding i
a new or different kind of accident from designated Atomic Safety and Licensing the request for a hearing. Any hearing any accident previously evaluated: or (3) Board willissue a notice of hearing or held would take place after issuance of inv:lve a significant reduction in a an appropriate order.
the amendment.
m:rgin of safety.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a If the !!nal determination is that the ne seven< lay test schedule required petition for leave to intervene shall set amendment involves a significant f:r the Technical Specification was forth with particularity the interest of hasards consideration, any hearing held b: sed on a recommendation from the the petitioner in the im+ ding. and would take place before the issuance of turbine vendor to ensure reliability of how that interest may be affected by the any amendment.
l cperation.De tu@ine vendor has results of the procuding.no petition Normally, the Commission will not f:rmally changed their test schedule should specifically explain the reasons issue the amendment until the
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 280 / Thursday. September 15,1983 / Note--
capriationof theatkisynotice
' However, should cir--
f.s;ad.
inspecuen at the Commanission's Pabiic during the nouce period such that failure Document Room.1717 H Street NW.,
to is===== ef the===n,t t he cheage Washingtoe. D.C.and at theIndien subject facility operating license met to act is a timely way would result. for River Community College ubrary. 33GS any person whose laterest may k example.In derating or shutdown of the Virginia Avenue.Ft.Piesca Florida aHected by this proceeding and who facility, the %mmi==ian mayissue the 33450.
r wishes to participate as a party in the license amendment before the proceeding must Sie a written petition expiration of the 30 day notice period.
Deed e u.a a. Maryland, eis 7e day forlesve to latervene. Request for a of September.1ses.
provided that its final determination is hearing and petitions for leave to that the emendment involves no For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
signincant hazards considersuon, &
Geerse W.Engheen, intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comunission*a " Rules of finel determination will consider aU y w,wpg4 m y Practice forDomestic Ucanning public andState anmmants received.
uo Proceedings"in to CFR Part 2. If a Should as Comudselon take this action.
Ira m as mam s-med request fora hessing or petition for it will peMink a notice ofissuance and coce,
leave to intervene is Aled by the above provide !arapportuairy for a heermig daan, the en= -.= ion er an Atomic citar i====== & tv-" -' expects
[Decentles.as-2 eel Safety and ucenairqs Board, designated thet the ased to take this action wiD by theca==3=sioner by the Chainnan occur veryinfrequently.
F hec Poww M of the A4easic Safetyand Licenoms A request for a hearing or a petition g
g Board Panei, willrule en the request F
Opwedng and/or pedeios and the Secretary or the t
i o
U.S.
Uconee andOpportunRy Mr Prior a
Nuclear Regulatory Comunission.
Heartng smg e
Washington,D.C.20564, Attention:
ot oy Docksting and Service Branch,or ma7 h United States Nuclear RegulaterY an appropnnk uds.
be dehvend to the mionsPublic Commission (4he Commission)is As regered by 30 CFR I 2.714, a e
Document Fanm.171y H Street, NW consideringissuance of an amendment petition for leave to hatarvene shall set Washington. D.C., by the above date.
to Facility Operating License No. DPR-forth with partiaslerity the interest of Where petitions are Bled during the last 48, issued to Nebmda Pobhc Power the petitioner na the proceeding, and tm (10) days of the notice period.11la Distrid (the hann==*). for operation of how that interest ma requestad that the petitioner promptly so the Cooper N=elene Station located in ruults of te
- y be effected by the
~
thepetition inform the %mmission by a tou-free Nanaba County, Nebrada.
would speciScak5y expl5n the ruesons r
"h telzphone call to Wastern Unica at (800)
N amerwi===t would revise the
(. I int **"ti" aboeld be # t 325-4000 (im Missouri (800) 342-6700).
operating license and the provisions in
& Western Union operator should be the Technical Spedikations relating to 11 mg rs e dse given Datagram Identdication Number changes to permit reactor tion at peudoner's right under the Act to be made a party to the pr===rher.,
3737 and the following message.
powerlevels afsos of powerwie e a m g p(2)the addressed to George W. Knightan:
one recuculation loop out of servson.
pititioner's name and talephone Presently, the Cooper Nuclear Station property, Snancial, or other laterest la number: date petition was snailed: plant operetinglicense requires plant name; and publication date and page shutdown if an idle redroeletion loop
""Y
"*Y t
number of this Fedesal Register notion.
cannot be returned to service withm as entered in the ding on the A copy of the petition should also be hours. W change proposed by the petitioner,e intere & petition should sent to the Exmoutive LasalDuoder.
Eceasee would delete this license also identify the specs 6c aspam(s) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca=""M condition and snodify the Taranrat a
maner aymceedmgam Washingles D.C.205ss,and toHamid
- SpeciSostions ITSs) en peoelde Joe
" hI*h *
"*'""h**
P F. Reis. Esq., Lowensteia, Newman.
appeopraele Average Power Range Any person who has Aled a petitism f'or l
Rais, Axalrad & Toll,1A25 Connecticut Monitor (APRh8) 8ux assers trip and rod enve to intervene or who has been Avenue NW., Washington, D.C.20e38, block settags sa imamese in the safety admitW as a party any amend h cttorney for the lim===es-limit 1sa#-
Cettical powerRatio peddon wient mquadrainn of he Nantimely'fdings of petidens for leave (MCl9t) vales revisions to the Board up to fleen (15) days pri the to intervene, amended petidona.
allowable Average PlanarLinear Heat IIret prehearing is.
supplemental petitions and/or toquests Genssotaan Rate (APIRCA) values ge pmceeding, e
as forhearing wiH not be estertained suitable for use with an idle peddon must satisfy se WM absent a determination by the redrculethm loop; and the hachiston of nquimments dew abow.
Commission, the presniing ofscar or the APRM Sux and ante plate pressure drop Not later than Afseen (15) days pnor 80 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board limits sering aiogie loop speestion; in the first prehearing conference designated to rule on the petition and/or econsdence with theliosasee's request, that the petitioner has made a application for amemhnant dated scheduled in the pronseding. a petitioner shall file a supplemset to the peeltsen to substantial showing ofgood cause for August 5.1980 as anodified by May 6 and intervene whidi must include a het of thz grantme of a late petition and/or July 28,1982 embenttela.
the contentions which are sought se he request, ha determamatica adt be Prior toinsaeace of the preposed litigated in the matte, and the bases Ier besed upon a belanang of the factors hoense====d==at, the Ce==d==6a=
each cestuntias setimeth with specified in 3D CFR 2.714(aX1MiHv) and - will have made Sadings seguired by the reason =hle opedacity. =*="i6,== del 1714(d).
Atomic Emergy Amt of1984, as====a d be lissiled to matters within he eespo d For further details with respect to this (the Amt) and the ComandesineFs the====rl===s ander eensidsraelmut A regulatisms.
action, ses the application Ier petitioner who fails to file see a By Ocsober 17.1983, the licensee asey signplernant whidi setisAss these
(
cmendment whichis avadable forpubbc file a Jequest der a heelag with respect requirements with respect so at least one l
f/7d2
/'
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
. WASHlNGTON, D. C. 20005 S
e...e TO ALL NRR PROJECT NANAGERS
SUBJECT:
Florida Power and Light Co., et al.; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing i
9 n
W 9
i
~~
t
. _,.,.. _,. -,., - -. - -... - _,. -,,. -, -. _