ML20199A277
| ML20199A277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1997 |
| From: | Raghavan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199A280 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711170128 | |
| Download: ML20199A277 (7) | |
Text
.
l-7590 01-P i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-302 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICAi4T HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING
.The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) 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 F1 and DH-46-Fl. 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 ko$ EN2 P
j 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_tts analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is -s esented below:
1.
Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This License Amendment Reguest removes the 0)erating License Condition that requires flow indication in t1e ECCS system for boron dilution. Under certain post-accide, scenarios, boron dilution coolant-accidents) quired following design basis LOCAs [ loss-of-actions could be re 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 involva 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 prob'bility of an accident 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 evaluatino the radiological consequences of any accident described in the FSAit 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, previousiv 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
- $ +
3-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 systemr. 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 S) ray are used during the course of CR-3's normal operation. T1ose methods of cperation have been evaluated in the development of previously approved licensing basis and found acceptable.
Using these previously a) proved methods in these post-accident conditions, elimination of tie 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 arecipitation is improved through the utilization of multiple availa)le 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 Comission take this.
-action, it:will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very I
infrequently.
-Written coments 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 Comission.
Washington, DC 20555-0001. and should cite the publication date and page t
number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written coments 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 coments 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 anc paitions for leave to intervene-is discussed below.
By December 12,1997,the licensee may file a request for o 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
- Comission'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 Comission'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
4 4.
River. Florida.
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 Board.
-designated by the Comission 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 vith 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
I 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 wnich satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one 1
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 Comission 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.
I
?, 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 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 Comission Washington, DC, 20555-0001, and to R.
Alexander Glenn General Counsel, Florida Power Corporation, MAC - ASA, P. O.
Box 1.,42, 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
f For further details with respect to this action, see the application for i
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.
FR TFE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L. Raghavai, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _