Entergy Operations, Incorporated; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 48196-48198 [E5-4418]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48196
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices
provides input information, and
discusses the theoretical and empirical
basis for each procedure. This manual is
updated on a regular schedule. The
LAUS program implemented a major
program redesign in January 2005. The
Redesign was announced in the Federal
Register on November 8, 2004.
The increase in the number of
responses from the last collection is due
to the increase in the number of areas
covered by the program.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Title: Local Area Unemployment
Statistics (LAUS) Program.
OMB Number: 1220–0017.
Affected Public: State government.
Total Respondents: 52.
Frequency: Monthly and Annually.
Total Responses: 95,069.
Average Time Per Response: 1.50
hours.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
142,298 hours.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$0.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance): $0.
III. Desired Focus of Comments
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is
particularly interested in comments
that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval of the
information collection request; they also
will become a matter of public record.
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:02 Aug 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of
August, 2005.
Cathy Kazanowski,
Chief, Division of Management Systems,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[FR Doc. 05–16191 Filed 8–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–24–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–368]
Entergy Operations, Incorporated;
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, NRC) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. NFP–
6, issued to Entergy Operations
Incorporated (the licensee), for
operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit
2 (ANO–2), located in Pope county.
The proposed amendment would
define spent fuel loading restrictions for
the Holtec International HI–STORM 100
Cask System Multi–Purpose Canister
(MPC)–32. The licensee will be
removing spent fuel from the spent fuel
pool and placing it in dry storage as
early as September 2005. This activity
will restore the full-core offload
capability at ANO–2.
The licensee believed that the
calculation that considered the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68 for
loading/unloading an MPC–32 met the
criteria of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR
50.36, and did not require NRC review
and approval. However, based on
Regulatory Information Summary (RIS)
2005–05, ‘‘Regulatory Issues Regarding
Criticality Analyses for Spent Fuel Pools
and Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installations,’’ the licensee submitted a
pre-application letter to the NRC
outlining the plans to submit a nonexigent technical specification (TS)
change and justification for continued
operations without prior NRC approval
based on guidance contained in
Administrative Letter 98–10,
‘‘Dispositioning of Technical
Specifications that are Insufficient to
Assure Plant Safety,’’ and Generic Letter
91–18, ‘‘Information to Licensees
Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual
Sections on Resolution of Degraded and
Nonconforming Conditions and on
Operabiltiy.’’ In a teleconference
between the licensee and the NRC staff
held on July 19, 2005, the NRC stated
that it did not believe ANO–2 was in
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
compliance with 10 CFR 50.68 and,
therefore, the proposed change required
NRC approval prior to proceeding with
cask loading activities.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for
amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff
must determine 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. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The fuel handling accidents described
below can be postulated to increase
reactivity. However, for these accident
conditions, the double contingency principle
of ANS N16.1–1975 is applied. This states
that it is unnecessary to assume two unlikely,
independent, concurrent events to ensure
protection against a criticality accident.
Thus, for accident conditions, the presence of
soluble boron in the SFP [spent fuel pool]
water can be assumed as a realistic initial
condition since its absence would be a
second unlikely event.
Loading/unloading a storage cask in the
SFP does not affect the previously evaluated
fuel handling accidents (i.e., criticality
effects) in the SFP. The ANO–2 TS for SFP
boron concentration ensures subcritical
conditions in the SFP during fuel movement
activities, whether within the SFP racks or to
a storage cask during normal and accident
conditions.
The cask configuration for the storage cask
(MPC–32) is sufficiently similar to spent fuel
racks in the SFP as to not induce new or
different spent fuel assembly damage in the
unlikely event of the occurrence of a fuel
handling accident during storage cask
loading/unloading activities. The fuel
handling accident includes four drop
scenarios (fuel drop horizontally on a cask,
fuel drop on a fuel assembly, fuel drop next
to a cask, and a fuel drop on the cask basket).
The same equipment and procedural controls
for controlling fuel within the SFP are
utilized when loading/unloading a storage
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices
cask. In addition, the postulated fuel
handling accidents associated with loading/
unloading a storage cask are bounded by
current ANO–2 TS SFP requirements for
minimum boron concentration.
Loading/unloading a storage cask will have
no impact on the boron dilution event
probability. The same controls for prohibiting
a dilution event during spent fuel movement
activities in the SFP are in use when loading/
unloading fuel in a cask located in the cask
pit.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The storage casks have the same basic
design and control of a SFP rack. The cask
cell walls are thicker than the SFP rack walls;
the outside wall on the cask is thicker than
the SFP racks and the space for mishandling
is tighter than around the racks. When the
cask loading pit gate is open and the
Technical Specifications are applicable, the
pit is in direct communications with the
spent fuel pool. Boron concentrations and
decay heat removal for fuel in the cask
loading pit is controlled in the same manner
as it is for fuel in the spent fuel pool proper.
An accident analysis for the MPC–32 was
performed assuming the same SFP rack
accidents that are discussed in the ANO–2
SAR [safety analysis report]. The ANO–2 TS
boron concentration assures that a subcritical
margin is maintained during any postulated
accident condition (i.e., keff [effective neutron
multiplication coefficient] is less than or
equal to 0.95).
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ANO–2 TSs require for criticality
concerns in the SFP that keff remain less than
or equal to 0.95. For the MPC–32, the
criticality analysis demonstrated that when
the ANO–2 TS for SFP boron concentration
is met, a loading restriction is required to
ensure keff remains less than or equal to 0.95.
The proposed change to the ANO–2 TS will
ensure the criticality margin is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
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 14 days after the date of
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:02 Aug 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 14-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
14-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 Commission take this action, it will
publish in the Federal Register a notice
of 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.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, 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 and
Issuance of Orders’’ in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48197
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The
name, address and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for 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/requestor must
also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner/requestor is aware and on
which the petitioner/requestor intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
48198
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 2005 / Notices
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.
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101,
verification number is (301) 415–1966.
A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and it is requested that copies be
transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:02 Aug 15, 2005
Jkt 205001
of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be
sent to Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire,
Winston and Strawn, 1700 K Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817,
attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated July 21, 2005, which
is available for public inspection at the
Commission’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone
at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day
of August 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Drew G. Holland,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5–4418 Filed 8–15–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]
Nuclear Management Company, LLC;
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24
and DPR–27 issued to Nuclear
Management Company, LLC (the
licensee), for operation of the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1
and 2, located in the Town of Two
Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
The proposed amendments would
revise the licensing basis as described in
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Final
Safety Analysis Report to incorporate
the proposed Unit 1 reactor vessel head
(RVH) drop analysis and the revised
Unit 2 RVH drop analysis.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendments, the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 requests involve no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in title 10
of the Code Of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendments 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. Would the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change incorporates the
revised heavy load analysis into the PBNP
FSAR. This analysis involves the postulated
drop of the RVH [reactor vessel head] over a
reactor vessel containing fuel assemblies.
Assuming that the BMI [bottom mounted
instrument] tubes are severed as a result of
displacement of the reactor vessel, a decrease
in reactor coolant inventory will occur. Thus,
a RVH drop can be postulated as an initiator
of a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) under
shutdown conditions.
A RVH drop is of sufficiently low
probability such that, for Unit 1, the
probability of a LOCA is not significantly
increased over the current licensing basis
large break LOCA. For Unit 2, the probability
is unchanged from the previously approved
RVH drop analysis.
For Unit 1, supplemental administrative
controls have been established to assure
continued availability of multiple
independent sources of water to provide core
cooling and makeup water well in excess of
the postulated LOCA. Containment closure
will also be established during this evolution.
No pressurization of the reactor coolant
system will occur as a result of this
postulated event. For Unit 2, the previously
approved administrative controls have been
revised, consistent with those submitted for
Unit 1 herein, to provide additional makeup
water capacity.
The calculated radiological consequences
of the postulated RVH drop are within those
calculated for the current licensing basis
large break LOCA. Therefore, the
consequences of a LOCA are not increased.
The proposed change is consistent with
safety analysis assumptions and resultant
consequences. All Technical Specifications
are satisfied and required equipment is
operable. Therefore, this change would not
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48196-48198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4418]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-368]
Entergy Operations, Incorporated; 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, NRC) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NFP-6, issued to Entergy Operations Incorporated (the licensee), for
operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope
county.
The proposed amendment would define spent fuel loading restrictions
for the Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System Multi-Purpose
Canister (MPC)-32. The licensee will be removing spent fuel from the
spent fuel pool and placing it in dry storage as early as September
2005. This activity will restore the full-core offload capability at
ANO-2.
The licensee believed that the calculation that considered the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68 for loading/unloading an MPC-32 met the
criteria of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.36, and did not require NRC
review and approval. However, based on Regulatory Information Summary
(RIS) 2005-05, ``Regulatory Issues Regarding Criticality Analyses for
Spent Fuel Pools and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations,''
the licensee submitted a pre-application letter to the NRC outlining
the plans to submit a non-exigent technical specification (TS) change
and justification for continued operations without prior NRC approval
based on guidance contained in Administrative Letter 98-10,
``Dispositioning of Technical Specifications that are Insufficient to
Assure Plant Safety,'' and Generic Letter 91-18, ``Information to
Licensees Regarding Two NRC Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of
Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on Operabiltiy.'' In a
teleconference between the licensee and the NRC staff held on July 19,
2005, the NRC stated that it did not believe ANO-2 was in compliance
with 10 CFR 50.68 and, therefore, the proposed change required NRC
approval prior to proceeding with cask loading activities.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The fuel handling accidents described below can be postulated to
increase reactivity. However, for these accident conditions, the
double contingency principle of ANS N16.1-1975 is applied. This
states that it is unnecessary to assume two unlikely, independent,
concurrent events to ensure protection against a criticality
accident. Thus, for accident conditions, the presence of soluble
boron in the SFP [spent fuel pool] water can be assumed as a
realistic initial condition since its absence would be a second
unlikely event.
Loading/unloading a storage cask in the SFP does not affect the
previously evaluated fuel handling accidents (i.e., criticality
effects) in the SFP. The ANO-2 TS for SFP boron concentration
ensures subcritical conditions in the SFP during fuel movement
activities, whether within the SFP racks or to a storage cask during
normal and accident conditions.
The cask configuration for the storage cask (MPC-32) is
sufficiently similar to spent fuel racks in the SFP as to not induce
new or different spent fuel assembly damage in the unlikely event of
the occurrence of a fuel handling accident during storage cask
loading/unloading activities. The fuel handling accident includes
four drop scenarios (fuel drop horizontally on a cask, fuel drop on
a fuel assembly, fuel drop next to a cask, and a fuel drop on the
cask basket). The same equipment and procedural controls for
controlling fuel within the SFP are utilized when loading/unloading
a storage
[[Page 48197]]
cask. In addition, the postulated fuel handling accidents associated
with loading/unloading a storage cask are bounded by current ANO-2
TS SFP requirements for minimum boron concentration.
Loading/unloading a storage cask will have no impact on the
boron dilution event probability. The same controls for prohibiting
a dilution event during spent fuel movement activities in the SFP
are in use when loading/unloading fuel in a cask located in the cask
pit.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The storage casks have the same basic design and control of a
SFP rack. The cask cell walls are thicker than the SFP rack walls;
the outside wall on the cask is thicker than the SFP racks and the
space for mishandling is tighter than around the racks. When the
cask loading pit gate is open and the Technical Specifications are
applicable, the pit is in direct communications with the spent fuel
pool. Boron concentrations and decay heat removal for fuel in the
cask loading pit is controlled in the same manner as it is for fuel
in the spent fuel pool proper.
An accident analysis for the MPC-32 was performed assuming the
same SFP rack accidents that are discussed in the ANO-2 SAR [safety
analysis report]. The ANO-2 TS boron concentration assures that a
subcritical margin is maintained during any postulated accident
condition (i.e., keff [effective neutron multiplication
coefficient] is less than or equal to 0.95).
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ANO-2 TSs require for criticality concerns in the SFP that
keff remain less than or equal to 0.95. For the MPC-32,
the criticality analysis demonstrated that when the ANO-2 TS for SFP
boron concentration is met, a loading restriction is required to
ensure keff remains less than or equal to 0.95. The
proposed change to the ANO-2 TS will ensure the criticality margin
is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
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 14 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 14-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 14-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 Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of 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. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
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/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these
[[Page 48198]]
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.
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Nicholas S. Reynolds,
Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-
3817, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 21, 2005, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-
4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Drew G. Holland,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4418 Filed 8-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
