Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3, 27939-27940 [2014-11231]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Notices
strongly encourages comments and
other submissions on its Web site
(www.mcrmc.gov).
Christopher Nuneviller,
Associate Director, Administration and
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014–11207 Filed 5–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE;P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0114]
In the Matter of All Operating Reactor
Licensees
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Director’s decision under 10
CFR 2.206; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued a
director’s decision with regard to a
petition dated July 27, 2011, filed by Mr.
Geoff Fettus, Senior Project Attorney for
the Natural Resources Defense Council
(the petitioner), requesting that the NRC
take action with regard to all operating
reactor licensees. The petitioner’s
requests, the director’s decision, the
letter to the petitioner, and the letter to
the licensees (which includes a listing
of all operating reactor licensees
affected by this proposed director’s
decision) are discussed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2014–0114 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for NRC–2014–0114. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher;
telephone: 301–287–3422; email:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agency wide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
Proposed Director’s Decision and the
Letter to the Petitioner are available in
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:18 May 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
ML13282A373 and ML13282A358. The
Letter to the Licensees, which includes
a listing of all operating reactor
licensees affected by this proposed
director’s decision, is available in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML13282A372.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the Deputy Director,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
has issued a director’s decision
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14098A166)
on a petition filed by the petitioner on
July 27, 2011, (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11216A085). A listing of all
operating reactor licensees affected by
this proposed director’s decision is
available in the Letter to Licensees,
available in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML13282A372.
The petitioner requested that the NRC
order licensees to comply with 12
specific recommendations in the NRC
Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Report,
‘‘Recommendations for Enhancing
Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,’’
issued July 12, 2011, (ADAMS
Accession No. ML111861807). As the
basis of the request, the petitioner cited
the NTTF Report as the rationale for and
basis of the petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed
director’s decision to the petitioner and
the licensees for comment on March 11,
2014. The petitioner and the licensees
were asked to provide comments within
15 days on any part of the proposed
director’s decision that was considered
to be erroneous or any issues in the
petition that were not addressed. The
staff did not receive any comments on
the proposed director’s decision.
The Deputy Director of the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation has
determined that the request, to order
licensees to comply with 12 specific
recommendations in the NRC NTTF
Report, ‘‘Recommendations for
Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st
Century,’’ issued July 12, 2011, was
resolved through the issuance of orders,
written statements in accordance with
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), rulemaking, and
the Emergency Response Data System
initiative. The reasons for this decision
are explained in the director’s decision
(DD–14–02) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of
the Commission’s regulations.
The NRC will file a copy of the
director’s decision with the Secretary of
the Commission for the Commission’s
review in accordance with 10 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27939
2.206. As provided by this regulation,
the director’s decision will constitute
the final action of the Commission 25
days after the date of the decision unless
the Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the director’s
decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of May 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jennifer L. Uhle,
Deputy Director for Reactor Safety Programs,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–11232 Filed 5–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–302; License No. DPR–72;
NRC–2010–0096]
Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal
River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Director’s decision; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is giving notice that
the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation (NRR) has issued a
director’s decision with regard to a
petition dated December 9, 2009, as
supplemented on January 7 and August
6, 2010, filed by Thomas Saporitio (the
petitioner).
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2010–0096 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2010–0096. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
27940
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 94 / Thursday, May 15, 2014 / Notices
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Gratton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation; U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1055;
email: Christopher.Gratton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the Director, of NRR,
has issued a director’s decision with
regard to a petition dated December 5,
2009, filed by Thomas Saporito
(ADAMS Accession No. ML093430702).
The petition was supplemented on
January 7, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100200966) and consolidated with
an additional August 6, 2010, petition
(ADAMS Accession No. ML102220032).
The petition concerns the operation of
the Crystal River Nuclear Generating
Plant, Unit 3 (CR–3).
In the December 5, 2009, petition, the
petitioner raised concerns about the
delamination (i.e., the separation of the
different layers) of the CR–3
containment that occurred during the
fall 2009 refueling outage. The
petitioner considers this condition to be
potentially unsafe and to be in violation
of Federal regulations. In the petition, a
number of references to the condition of
the CR–3 containment were cited that
the petitioner believes prohibit
operation of the facility.
The petition requested that CR–3
perform the following actions, as
summarized below:
1. Physically remove the outer 25
centimeters (10 inches) of concrete
surrounding the CR–3 containment
building.
2. Test samples of the concrete
removed from the CR–3 containment
building for composition and compare
the test results to a sample of concrete
from a similarly designed facility.
3. Keep the CR–3 in cold shutdown
mode until such time as the licensee can
demonstrate full compliance with its
NRC operating license for CR–3 within
the safety margins delineated in the
licensee’s final safety analysis report
(FSAR) and within the CR–3 sitespecific technical specifications.
4. Provide the public with an
opportunity to intervene at a public
hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board to challenge any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:18 May 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
certification made by the licensee to the
NRC that it has reestablished full
regulatory compliance.
The petition of December 5, 2009,
provided the following basis for CR–3
remaining in cold shutdown, as
summarized below:
1. The licensee has not determined
the root cause of the separation.
2. No method of non-destructive or
destructive testing is sufficient to satisfy
the FSAR requirements.
3. The removal of the top 10 inches
of concrete of the entire containment
outer wall would allow for proper visual
inspection.
4. The removal of the top 10 inches
of concrete of the entire containment
outer wall would ensure the best
adhesion of the new concrete pour to
the existing inner wall.
5. The licensee’s FSAR requires that
the CR–3 containment building be
comprised of a monolithic concrete
perimeter wall. The only way the
licensee can fully achieve compliance
with its FSAR is to remove 10 inches of
concrete from the entire outer wall for
proper visual inspect and repair
activities.
On January 7, 2010, the petitioner
participated in a teleconference with the
staff’s petition review board. The
meeting gave the petitioner an
opportunity to provide additional
information and to clarify issues raised
in the petition. The information
provided during this teleconference was
considered a supplement to the
December 9, 2009, petition.
On August 6, 2010, the petitioner sent
in an additional petition related to the
original December 5, 2009, petition;
however, it was not accepted for review
under Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
process. By letter dated September 3,
2010 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML102290577), the NRC informed the
petitioner that the August 6, 2010,
petition would be considered a
supplement to the December 5, 2009,
petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed
director’s decision to the petitioner and
to Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for
comment on January 24, 2014. The staff
did not receive any comments on the
proposed director’s decision.
The Director of NRR has determined
that the request, to require CR–3 to
remain in cold shutdown mode, is moot
and no action will be taken. The reasons
for this decision are explained in the
director’s decision 14–03, pursuant to
10 CFR 2.206, the complete text of
which is available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14097A185.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NRC will take no action on the
request to require CR–3 to remain in
cold shutdown because on February 20,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13056A005), the licensee provided
the certification required by 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) to the NRC staff
that CR–3 had permanently ceased
power operations and that all fuel had
been permanently removed from the
reactor vessel. Upon docketing of these
two certifications, the licensee’s 10 CFR
Part 50 license no longer authorized
operation of the CR–3 reactor or
emplacement or retention of fuel into
the reactor vessel. Accordingly, the
licensee is prohibited by regulation from
restarting CR–3 or loading fuel into the
reactor vessel. Because the licensee is
no longer authorized to operate the
reactor, CR–3 may not enter a mode of
operation that requires the containment
to be in an operable condition.
A copy of the director’s decision will
be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission for the Commission’s
review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206
of the Commission’s regulations. As
provided for by this regulation, the
director’s decision will constitute the
final action of the Commission 25 days
after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion,
institutes a review of the director’s
decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of May 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jennifer L. Uhle,
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–11231 Filed 5–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Summary: In accordance with the
requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
which provides opportunity for public
comment on new or revised data
collections, the Railroad Retirement
Board (RRB) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed data collections.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s
estimate of the burden of the collection
of the information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27939-27940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-302; License No. DPR-72; NRC-2010-0096]
Duke Energy Florida, Inc.; Crystal River Nuclear Generating
Plant, Unit 3
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Director's decision; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is giving notice
that the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has
issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated December
9, 2009, as supplemented on January 7 and August 6, 2010, filed by
Thomas Saporitio (the petitioner).
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2010-0096 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may access publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-0096. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
[[Page 27940]]
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document (if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Gratton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1055; email:
Christopher.Gratton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Director, of
NRR, has issued a director's decision with regard to a petition dated
December 5, 2009, filed by Thomas Saporito (ADAMS Accession No.
ML093430702). The petition was supplemented on January 7, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100200966) and consolidated with an additional August
6, 2010, petition (ADAMS Accession No. ML102220032). The petition
concerns the operation of the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant,
Unit 3 (CR-3).
In the December 5, 2009, petition, the petitioner raised concerns
about the delamination (i.e., the separation of the different layers)
of the CR-3 containment that occurred during the fall 2009 refueling
outage. The petitioner considers this condition to be potentially
unsafe and to be in violation of Federal regulations. In the petition,
a number of references to the condition of the CR-3 containment were
cited that the petitioner believes prohibit operation of the facility.
The petition requested that CR-3 perform the following actions, as
summarized below:
1. Physically remove the outer 25 centimeters (10 inches) of
concrete surrounding the CR-3 containment building.
2. Test samples of the concrete removed from the CR-3 containment
building for composition and compare the test results to a sample of
concrete from a similarly designed facility.
3. Keep the CR-3 in cold shutdown mode until such time as the
licensee can demonstrate full compliance with its NRC operating license
for CR-3 within the safety margins delineated in the licensee's final
safety analysis report (FSAR) and within the CR-3 site-specific
technical specifications.
4. Provide the public with an opportunity to intervene at a public
hearing before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to challenge
any certification made by the licensee to the NRC that it has
reestablished full regulatory compliance.
The petition of December 5, 2009, provided the following basis for
CR-3 remaining in cold shutdown, as summarized below:
1. The licensee has not determined the root cause of the
separation.
2. No method of non-destructive or destructive testing is
sufficient to satisfy the FSAR requirements.
3. The removal of the top 10 inches of concrete of the entire
containment outer wall would allow for proper visual inspection.
4. The removal of the top 10 inches of concrete of the entire
containment outer wall would ensure the best adhesion of the new
concrete pour to the existing inner wall.
5. The licensee's FSAR requires that the CR-3 containment building
be comprised of a monolithic concrete perimeter wall. The only way the
licensee can fully achieve compliance with its FSAR is to remove 10
inches of concrete from the entire outer wall for proper visual inspect
and repair activities.
On January 7, 2010, the petitioner participated in a teleconference
with the staff's petition review board. The meeting gave the petitioner
an opportunity to provide additional information and to clarify issues
raised in the petition. The information provided during this
teleconference was considered a supplement to the December 9, 2009,
petition.
On August 6, 2010, the petitioner sent in an additional petition
related to the original December 5, 2009, petition; however, it was not
accepted for review under Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) process. By letter dated September 3, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML102290577), the NRC informed the petitioner that
the August 6, 2010, petition would be considered a supplement to the
December 5, 2009, petition.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed director's decision to the
petitioner and to Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for comment on January 24,
2014. The staff did not receive any comments on the proposed director's
decision.
The Director of NRR has determined that the request, to require CR-
3 to remain in cold shutdown mode, is moot and no action will be taken.
The reasons for this decision are explained in the director's decision
14-03, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, the complete text of which is
available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14097A185.
The NRC will take no action on the request to require CR-3 to
remain in cold shutdown because on February 20, 2013 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13056A005), the licensee provided the certification required by
10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) to the NRC staff that CR-3 had
permanently ceased power operations and that all fuel had been
permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Upon docketing of these
two certifications, the licensee's 10 CFR Part 50 license no longer
authorized operation of the CR-3 reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel. Accordingly, the licensee is prohibited
by regulation from restarting CR-3 or loading fuel into the reactor
vessel. Because the licensee is no longer authorized to operate the
reactor, CR-3 may not enter a mode of operation that requires the
containment to be in an operable condition.
A copy of the director's decision will be filed with the Secretary
of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this
regulation, the director's decision will constitute the final action of
the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the
Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the director's
decision in that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of May 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jennifer L. Uhle,
Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-11231 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P