Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 77414-77417 [E6-22026]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
77414
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices
Type of Response: Reporting.
RESPONDENT HOUR BURDEN FOR THE APPRENTICESHIP EVALUATION
Total
respondents
Activity
Average
minutes
per response
Frequency
Burden hours
Survey of Sponsors .................................................................
Site Visits:
State apprenticeship directors and staff ..........................
Providers of related education (community college and
training program administrators).
One-stop Center Directors and Staff ...............................
Sponsors ..........................................................................
Other: WIB chairs and staff .............................................
Apprentices ......................................................................
1,144
One time ................................
18.5
353
19
29
One time ................................
One time ................................
360
60
114
29
14
37
15
80
One
One
One
One
................................
................................
................................
................................
60
60
60
45
14
37
15
60
Totals ........................................................................
1,338
................................................
........................
622
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: 0.
Total Annual Costs (operating/
maintaining systems or purchasing
services): 0.
Description: This is a one-time
information collection consisting of a
survey of sponsors of registered
apprenticeship programs, using a
stratified random sample with over
sampling of sponsors in high growth
industries who have recently begun
apprenticeship programs. The survey
will be conducted by phone or Internet
at the respondent’s choice. The findings
from the survey will fill a gap in
knowledge by providing, for the first
time, systematic information on the
views of sponsors’ views re: Costs and
benefits and on interactions with other
parts of the workforce development
system.
Ira L. Mills,
Departmental Clearance Officer/Team
Leader.
[FR Doc. E6–22056 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
Revised Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Construction of the
Smithsonian National Museum of
African American History and
Culture—Public Scoping Meeting on
January 4, 2007
Smithsonian Institution (SI),
National Capital Planning Commission
(NCPC).
ACTION: Notice.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: The SI and NCPC, as joint
lead agencies with NCPC as the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:15 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
time
time
time
time
Responsible Federal Agency, are
confirming the date of the public
scoping meeting for the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
construction of the Smithsonian
National Museum of African American
History and Culture. Notice of the date
of the public meeting was provided in
the Washington Post on December 5,
2006. The Notice of Intent to Prepare an
EIS initially published in the Federal
Register/Volume 71, No. 223/Monday,
November 20, 2006 did not include the
meeting information. In addition, the
comment period, Web site URL, and
contact information have changed.
The EIS
scoping meeting will be held on January
4, 2007 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the
National Music Center at the City
Museum building, located at 801 K
Street, NW. (Mount Vernon Square),
Washington, DC. Consultants
representing the SI and NCPC will be
available to answer questions and
receive comments about the scope of the
EIS. Announcements about the meeting
are provided on the NCPC Web site at
www.ncpc.gov, and in other media.
The public comment period is
extended through February 4, 2007 to
ensure sufficient time for submittal of
comments following the meeting.
Comments are invited at the meeting, in
writing, by e-mail to info@louisbergernmaahceis.com, or on the project Web
site at https://www.louisbergernmaahceis.com. Written comments
should be sent to Jill Cavanaugh at the
Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2445 M Street,
NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20037–
1445.
DC 20013–7012; Phone 202–633–6549;
Fax: 202–633–6233.
John E. Huerta,
General Counsel, Smithsonian Institution.
Dated: December 18, 2006.
Lois Schiffer,
General Counsel, National Capital Planning
Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–9852 Filed 12–20–06; 12:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 8030–03–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–313]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jane
Passman, Senior Facilities Planner,
Smithsonian Institution, Office of
Facilities Engineering and Operations,
P.O. Box 37012, 600 Maryland Ave.,
SW., suite 5001, MRC 511, Washington,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; Notice
of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Renewed Facility
Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–51 issued to Entergy
Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit 1 (ANO–1), located in Pope
County, Arkansas.
The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.14, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Boron
Concentration,’’ TS 3.7.15, ‘‘Spent Fuel
Pool Storage,’’ and the associated Figure
3.7.15–1, and TS 4.3, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’
and the associated Figure 4.3.1.2–1. In
addition, this amendment would add TS
5.5.17, ‘‘Metamic Coupon Sampling
Program,’’ and Surveillance
Requirement 3.7.15.2 that directs the
performance of the coupon sampling
program.
The proposed TS changes support a
modification to the ANO–1 spent fuel
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
pool (SFP) that would utilize Metamic
poison insert assemblies (PIAs). In
addition to the proposed plant
modification, the licensee would
increase the SFP boron concentration
and credit boron to ensure that a 5percent subcriticality margin is
maintained during normal and accident
conditions. This proposed amendment
also would increase the allowable initial
fuel assembly uranium-235 (U–235)
enrichment from 4.1 weight percent
(wt%) to a maximum U–235 enrichment
of 4.95 wt%.
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 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 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.
Fuel Handling Accidents
The current licensing bases for the dose
consequences associate with a fuel handling
accident (FHA), which was performed
considering a maximum U–235 enrichment
of 4.95 wt% and a maximum burnup of
60,000 megawatt-days/ton of uranium, does
not exceed 25% of 10 CFR 100 limits. The
proposed change does not impact the current
analysis and therefore, there is no increase in
the dose consequences associated with a[n]
FHA.
The probability of having a[n] FHA has not
increased. Although it could be postulated
that a Metamic panel could be dropped
during installation, the approximate 50
pound weight of the panel falling on the
racks is bounded by the current fuel
assembly drop analysis.
Criticality Accidents Associated With a
Dropped Fuel Assembly
The three fuel assembly drop accidents
described below can be postulated to
increase reactivity. However, for these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:15 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
accident conditions, the double contingency
principle of ANS[I] [American National
Standards Institute] N–16.1–1975 is applied.
This states that is is unneccessary 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 storage pool
water can be assumed as a realistic initial
condition since its absence would be a
second unlikely event.
Three types of drop accidents have been
considered: A vertical drop accident, a
horizontal drop accident, and an inadvertent
drop of an assembly between the outside
periphery of the rack and the pool wall. The
structural damage to the pool liner, the racks,
and fuel assembly resulting from a dropped
fuel assembly striking the rack, the pool
floor, or another assembly located in the
racks is primarily dependent on the mass of
the falling object and drop height. Since
these two parameters are not changed by the
proposed modification, the postulated
structural damage to these items remains
unchanged. In all cases the proposed TS limit
for boron concentration ensures that a five
percent subcriticality margin is met for the
postulated accidents.
Criticality Accidents Associated With a
Misplaced Fuel Assembly
The fuel assembly misplacement accident
was considered for all storage configurations.
An assembly with high reactivity is assumed
to be placed in a storage location which
requires restricted storage based on initial U–
235 loading, cooling time, and burnup. The
presence of boron in the pool water assumed
in the analysis has been shown to offset the
worst case reactivity effect of a misplaced
fuel assembly for any configuration. This
boron requirement is less than the boron
concentration required by the ANO–1 TS.
Thus, a five percent subcriticality margin is
met for postulated accidents, since any
reactivity increase will be much less than the
negative worth of the dissolved boron.
Optimum Moderation Accident
For fuel storage applications in the SFP,
water is usually present. An ‘‘optimum
moderation’’ accident is not a concern in SFP
storage racks because the rack design
prevents the preferential reduction of water
density between the cells of a rack (e.g.,
boiling between cells). In addition, the
criticality analysis has demonstrated that keff
[k-effective] will remain less than 1.0 when
the SFP is fully flooded with unborated
water.
An ‘‘optimum moderation’’ accident in the
new fuel vault was evaluated and the
conclusions of that evaluation confirmed that
the reactivity effect is less than the regulatory
limit of 0.98 for keff.
Loss of SFP Cooling
The proposed changes to the ANO–1 SFP
racks do not result in changes to the SFP
cooling system and therefore the probability
of a loss of SFP cooling is not increased.
The consequences of a loss of spent fuel
pool cooling were evaluated and found to not
involve a significant increase as a result of
the proposed changes. A thermal-hydraulic
evaluation for the loss of SFP cooling was
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77415
performed. The analysis determined that the
minimum time to boil is more than three
hours following a complete loss of forced
cooling. This provides sufficient time for the
operators to restore cooling or establish an
alternate means of cooling before the water
shielding above the top of the racks falls
below 10 feet. Therefore, the proposed
change represents no increase in the
consequences of loss of pool cooling.
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 presence of soluble boron in the pool
water assumed in the criticality analysis is
less than the boron concentration required by
the ANO–1 TSs. Thus, a five percent
subcriticality margin is met for postulated
accidents, since any reactivity increase will
be much less than the negative worth of the
dissolved boron.
No new or different types of fuel assembly
drop scenarios are created by the proposed
change. During the installation of the
Metamic panels, the possible drop of a
panel is bounded by the current fuel
assembly drop analysis. No new or different
fuel assembly misplacement accidents will
be created. Administrative controls currently
exist to assist in assuring fuel misplacement
does not occur.
No changes are proposed to the spent fuel
pool cooling system or makeup systems and
therefore no new accidents are considered
related to the loss of cooling or makeup
capability.
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.
With the presence of a nominal boron
concentration, the SFP storage racks will be
designed to assure a subcritical array with a
five percent subcritical margin (95%
probability at the 95% confidence level).
This has been verified by criticality analyses.
Credit for soluble boron in the SFP water
is permitted under accident conditions. The
proposed modification that will allow
insertion of Metamic poison panels does not
result in the potential of any new
misplacement scenarios. Criticality analyses
have been performed to determine the
required boron concentration that would
ensure the maximum keff does not exceed
0.95. The ANO–1 TS for the minimum SFP
boron concentration is greater than that
required to ensure keff does not exceed 0.95.
Therefore, the margin of safety defined by
taking credit for soluble boron will be
maintained.
The structural analysis of the spent fuel
racks along with the evaluation of the SFP
structure indicated that the integrity of these
structures will be maintained with the
addition of the PIAs. The structural
requirements were shown to be satisfied,
thus the safety margins were maintained.
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
77416
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
In addition the proposed change includes
a coupon sampling program that will monitor
the physical properties of the Metamic
absorber material. The monitoring program
provides a method of verifying that the
assumptions used in the SFP criticality
analyses remain valid.
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 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 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example,
in derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
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, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:15 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 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’’ 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 O1F21, 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
requestors/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include 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/requestor who fails to satisfy
these 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
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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
of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be
sent to Terence A. Burke, Associate
General Council—Nuclear Entergy
Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway,
Jackson, Mississippi 39213, the attorney
for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated July 27, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated October 4
and October 9, 2006, which is available
for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.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 at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of December 2006.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–22026 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:15 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
Week of January 22, 2007—Tentative
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Sunshine Federal Register Notice
Weeks of December 25, 2006,
January 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 2007.
DATES:
Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
PLACE:
STATUS:
77417
1:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission on
Grid Reliability (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Mike Mayfield, 301 415–
5621).
The meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address: https://www.nrc.gov.
Week of January 29, 2007—Tentative
Public and Closed.
Matters To Be Considered
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Week of December 25, 2006
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of December 25, 2006.
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues
(closed—Ex. 1 & 3). To be held at
department of Homeland Security
headquarters, Washington, DC.
Week of January 1, 2007—Tentative
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Thursday, January 4, 2007
9:30 a.m. Discussion of management
Issues (Closed—Ex. 2).
1:30 a.m. Briefing on Strategic
Workforce Planning and Human
Capital Initiatives (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Mary Ellen Beach, 301
415–6803).
*
*
*
*
*
The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings
call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.
Contact person for more information:
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662.
*
*
*
*
*
ADDITION INFORMATION: Affirmation of
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC,
& Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station), LBP–06–20 (Sept. 22, 2006),
reconsid’n denied (Oct. 30, 2006)
tentatively scheduled on Thursday,
December 21, 2006 at 12:55 p.m. was
cancelled and will be rescheduled at a
later date. Affirmation of Final
Rulemaking to Revise 10 CFR 73.1,
Design Basis Threat (DBT) Requirements
tentatively scheduled on Thursday,
December 21, 2006 at 12:55 p.m. was
cancelled and tentatively rescheduled
on January 11, 2007, at 1:25 p.m.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policymaking/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify the
NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator,
(Deborah Chan, at 301–415–2100, or by
12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative)
a. Final Rule: Secure Transfer of
Nuclear Material (RIN 3150–AH90)
(Tentative).
b. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),
Intervenor Pilgrim Watch’s Appeal
of LBP–06–23 (Ruling on Standing
and Contentions) (Tentative).
Week of January 8, 2007—Tentative
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Browns Ferry
Unit 1 Restart (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Catherine Haney, 301
415–1453).
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address: https://www.nrc.gov
Thursday, January 11, 2007
1:25 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative)
a. Final Rulemaking to Revise 10 CFR
73.1, Design Basis Threat (DBT)
Requirements (Tentative).
b. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee,
LLC, & Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station), LBP–06–20 (9/22/
06): Entergy Nuclear Generation
Company & Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station), LBP–06–23 (10/16/
06) (Tentative).
1:30 p.m. Periodic Briefing on New
Reactor Issues (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Donna Williams, 301 415–
1322).
This meeting will be webcast lie at the
Web address: https://www.nrc.gov.
Week of January 15, 2007—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of January 15, 2007.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26DEN1.SGM
26DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77414-77417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22026]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-313]
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating
License No. DPR-51 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
for operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1), located in
Pope County, Arkansas.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.14, ``Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,'' TS 3.7.15, ``Spent
Fuel Pool Storage,'' and the associated Figure 3.7.15-1, and TS 4.3,
``Fuel Storage,'' and the associated Figure 4.3.1.2-1. In addition,
this amendment would add TS 5.5.17, ``Metamic Coupon Sampling
Program,'' and Surveillance Requirement 3.7.15.2 that directs the
performance of the coupon sampling program.
The proposed TS changes support a modification to the ANO-1 spent
fuel
[[Page 77415]]
pool (SFP) that would utilize Metamic[supreg] poison insert assemblies
(PIAs). In addition to the proposed plant modification, the licensee
would increase the SFP boron concentration and credit boron to ensure
that a 5-percent subcriticality margin is maintained during normal and
accident conditions. This proposed amendment also would increase the
allowable initial fuel assembly uranium-235 (U-235) enrichment from 4.1
weight percent (wt%) to a maximum U-235 enrichment of 4.95 wt%.
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 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 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.
Fuel Handling Accidents
The current licensing bases for the dose consequences associate
with a fuel handling accident (FHA), which was performed considering
a maximum U-235 enrichment of 4.95 wt% and a maximum burnup of
60,000 megawatt-days/ton of uranium, does not exceed 25% of 10 CFR
100 limits. The proposed change does not impact the current analysis
and therefore, there is no increase in the dose consequences
associated with a[n] FHA.
The probability of having a[n] FHA has not increased. Although
it could be postulated that a Metamic[supreg] panel could be dropped
during installation, the approximate 50 pound weight of the panel
falling on the racks is bounded by the current fuel assembly drop
analysis.
Criticality Accidents Associated With a Dropped Fuel Assembly
The three fuel assembly drop accidents described below can be
postulated to increase reactivity. However, for these accident
conditions, the double contingency principle of ANS[I] [American
National Standards Institute] N-16.1-1975 is applied. This states
that is is unneccessary 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 storage pool water can be assumed as a realistic
initial condition since its absence would be a second unlikely
event.
Three types of drop accidents have been considered: A vertical
drop accident, a horizontal drop accident, and an inadvertent drop
of an assembly between the outside periphery of the rack and the
pool wall. The structural damage to the pool liner, the racks, and
fuel assembly resulting from a dropped fuel assembly striking the
rack, the pool floor, or another assembly located in the racks is
primarily dependent on the mass of the falling object and drop
height. Since these two parameters are not changed by the proposed
modification, the postulated structural damage to these items
remains unchanged. In all cases the proposed TS limit for boron
concentration ensures that a five percent subcriticality margin is
met for the postulated accidents.
Criticality Accidents Associated With a Misplaced Fuel Assembly
The fuel assembly misplacement accident was considered for all
storage configurations. An assembly with high reactivity is assumed
to be placed in a storage location which requires restricted storage
based on initial U-235 loading, cooling time, and burnup. The
presence of boron in the pool water assumed in the analysis has been
shown to offset the worst case reactivity effect of a misplaced fuel
assembly for any configuration. This boron requirement is less than
the boron concentration required by the ANO-1 TS. Thus, a five
percent subcriticality margin is met for postulated accidents, since
any reactivity increase will be much less than the negative worth of
the dissolved boron.
Optimum Moderation Accident
For fuel storage applications in the SFP, water is usually
present. An ``optimum moderation'' accident is not a concern in SFP
storage racks because the rack design prevents the preferential
reduction of water density between the cells of a rack (e.g.,
boiling between cells). In addition, the criticality analysis has
demonstrated that keff [k-effective] will remain less
than 1.0 when the SFP is fully flooded with unborated water.
An ``optimum moderation'' accident in the new fuel vault was
evaluated and the conclusions of that evaluation confirmed that the
reactivity effect is less than the regulatory limit of 0.98 for
keff.
Loss of SFP Cooling
The proposed changes to the ANO-1 SFP racks do not result in
changes to the SFP cooling system and therefore the probability of a
loss of SFP cooling is not increased.
The consequences of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling were
evaluated and found to not involve a significant increase as a
result of the proposed changes. A thermal-hydraulic evaluation for
the loss of SFP cooling was performed. The analysis determined that
the minimum time to boil is more than three hours following a
complete loss of forced cooling. This provides sufficient time for
the operators to restore cooling or establish an alternate means of
cooling before the water shielding above the top of the racks falls
below 10 feet. Therefore, the proposed change represents no increase
in the consequences of loss of pool cooling.
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 presence of soluble boron in the pool water assumed in the
criticality analysis is less than the boron concentration required
by the ANO-1 TSs. Thus, a five percent subcriticality margin is met
for postulated accidents, since any reactivity increase will be much
less than the negative worth of the dissolved boron.
No new or different types of fuel assembly drop scenarios are
created by the proposed change. During the installation of the
Metamic[supreg] panels, the possible drop of a panel is bounded by
the current fuel assembly drop analysis. No new or different fuel
assembly misplacement accidents will be created. Administrative
controls currently exist to assist in assuring fuel misplacement
does not occur.
No changes are proposed to the spent fuel pool cooling system or
makeup systems and therefore no new accidents are considered related
to the loss of cooling or makeup capability.
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.
With the presence of a nominal boron concentration, the SFP
storage racks will be designed to assure a subcritical array with a
five percent subcritical margin (95% probability at the 95%
confidence level). This has been verified by criticality analyses.
Credit for soluble boron in the SFP water is permitted under
accident conditions. The proposed modification that will allow
insertion of Metamic[supreg] poison panels does not result in the
potential of any new misplacement scenarios. Criticality analyses
have been performed to determine the required boron concentration
that would ensure the maximum keff does not exceed 0.95.
The ANO-1 TS for the minimum SFP boron concentration is greater than
that required to ensure keff does not exceed 0.95.
Therefore, the margin of safety defined by taking credit for soluble
boron will be maintained.
The structural analysis of the spent fuel racks along with the
evaluation of the SFP structure indicated that the integrity of
these structures will be maintained with the addition of the PIAs.
The structural requirements were shown to be satisfied, thus the
safety margins were maintained.
[[Page 77416]]
In addition the proposed change includes a coupon sampling
program that will monitor the physical properties of the
Metamic[supreg] absorber material. The monitoring program provides a
method of verifying that the assumptions used in the SFP criticality
analyses remain valid.
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 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 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
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, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing 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, Public File Area
O1F21, 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'' 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
O1F21, 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 requestors/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 is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
The petition must include 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/requestor
who fails to satisfy these 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
[[Page 77417]]
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 Terence A. Burke, Associate General Council--
Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213, the attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated July 27, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated October 4 and October 9, 2006, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, File Public Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.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 at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December 2006.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Farideh E. Saba,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-22026 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
