[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 195 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54162-54163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27038]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-302]
Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Unit 3; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its
regulations for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-72 issued to
Florida Power Corporation, et al. (FPC or the licensee), for operation
of the Crystal River plant, Unit 3, located in Citrus County, Florida.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.D.1, ``Single Failure
Criteria,'' which requires accident evaluation using the combination of
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems assumed to be operative
``* * * after the most damaging single failure of ECCS equipment has
taken place.'' The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the
single failure requirement for very low probability scenarios under
certain circumstances. The exemption is limited to the systems required
for the prevention of boron precipitation during the long term cooling
phase of a loss of coolant accident. 10 CFR 50.46(b)(5) requires that
the ECCS be capable of providing long-term core cooling. Post-accident
boron precipitation is a potential, but unlikely, challenge to
maintaining long-term core cooling.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated June 4, 1998. The staff, on its own
initiative, proposed to extend the exemption to a potential single
failure vulnerability not requested by the licensee in its application.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.D.1, is to
ensure that reasonable assurance exists that long-term core cooling
will be maintained following a loss of coolant accident. The exemption
is needed because, with the postulation of certain single failures,
approved active methods for boron precipitation control (decay heat
Dump-to-Sump and Auxiliary Pressurizer Spray) may not be available
until decay heat levels had decreased during one postulated scenario
and manual repair actions were completed for the other postulated
scenario. In the event of the low probability sequence of events which
could lead to these conditions, the conservatisms present in the
calculations that validate the active methods, and the timely actions
FPC would take to restore an active mitigation method, assure adequate
long-term core cooling is maintained. Therefore, the requirements of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix K, Section I.D.1 are not necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of long-term core cooling after a loss of coolant
accident for the specific sequence of events covered by the licensee's
exemption request.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that in the event of a loss of coolant accident that
requires long-term cooling, prevention of boron precipitation would be
assured by the conservatisms in the calculations and assumptions and
ability to affect repairs if necessary to restore boron precipitation
mitigation systems. These conservatisms are included in the assumptions
for the value of boron solubility, calculations of decay heat
generation rate, and the amount of boron precipitation necessary to
prevent adequate core cooling. In addition, in the unlikely event that
repairs are necessary, procedural guidance for these actions has been
prepared and will be required to be maintained as a condition of the
exemption.
The proposed exemption will not result in an increase in the
probability or consequences of accidents or result in a change in
occupational or public dose since long-term core cooling would continue
to be available if required. The amount of radioactive waste would not
be changed by the proposed exemption. The proposed exemption would not
affect the type or amount of radiological plant effluents nor cause any
significant occupational exposures. Therefore, there are no significant
radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
The proposed exemption involves features located entirely within
the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect
non-radiological
[[Page 54163]]
plant effluents and has no other radiological environmental impact.
Therefore, the proposed exemption does not result in any significant
nonradiological environmental impacts.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded that there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed exemption, the staff
considered denial of the requested exemption. Denial of the request
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action
are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to
the Proposed Crystal River Unit 3,'' dated May 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 13, 1998, the staff
consulted with William Passetti, Chief, Department of Health, Bureau of
Radiation Control, in Florida, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated June 4, 1998, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, which is
located at The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.
C., and at the local public document room located at the Coastal
Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida
34428.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard A. Wiens,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-27038 Filed 10-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P