Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing (TAC Nos. J60622 and J60626); Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Docket Nos. 50-30 and 50-185, Sandusky, OH, 46521-46522 [E7-16313]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 160 / Monday, August 20, 2007 / Notices
NSF–54 Reviewer/Fellowship & Other
Award File & All Associated Records
NSF–55 Debarment/Scientific
Misconduct Files
NSF–56 Antarctic Conservation Act
Files
NSF–57 Delinquent Debtors File
NSF–59 Science & Technology Centers
(STC) Database
NSF–60 Antarctica Service Records
NSF–61 Diving Safety Records (Polar
Regions)
NSF–62 Radiation Safety Records
(Polar Regions)
NSF–63 Accident & Injury Reports
(Antarctic)
NSF–64 Project Participant File
NSF–65 NSF Electronic Payment File
NSF–66 NSF Photo Identification Card
System
NSF–67 Invention, Patent & Licensing
Documents
NSF–68 Project Results Information
Database
NSF–69 Education and Training
Records Files
NSF–70 NSF Visitor Credentials
System
NSF–71 General Correspondence Files
[FR Doc. 07–4049 Filed 8–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing (TAC
Nos. J60622 and J60626); Plum Brook
Reactor Facility, Docket Nos. 50–30
and 50–185, Sandusky, OH
Dates of amendment requests: May
18, 2005, May 12, 2006, February 9,
2007, and January 10, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The licensee (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA)) has
proposed to amend the Facility
Operating Licenses (TR–3 and R–93) of
the two research reactors located at
Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Sandusky,
Ohio. The amendments to the licenses
include revisions to the Technical
Specifications (TS), and incorporating a
Final Status Survey Plan (Revision 1).
The same TS set applies equally to both
licenses.
The Decommissioning Plan (DP) for
the Plum Brook Reactor Facility,
approved by the Commission by
issuance of license amendment dated
March 20, 2002, will remained
unchanged.
Proposed revisions to the TS include
but are not limited to administrative
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Aug 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
changes, revised facility descriptions,
new definitions and minor program
changes. Specific proposed revisions
include the following:
Section 1 of the TS is revised to state
that the TS apply to all activities
conducted under the provisions of the
Licenses. It clarifies that both reactors
are both shutdown and dismantled, and
there is no fuel remaining at the facility.
The facility was shutdown and ceased
operations in March 1973. The last
shipment of irradiated fuel was made on
May 25, 1973, and all remaining fuel
contaminated components were shipped
offsite by July 1973. Disposal of the
Plum Brock reactor vessel was
completed in early 2005 and the core
support components for the Mock Up
reactor were removed by the summer of
2003.
The ‘Definitions’ in Section 2 of the
TS are renumbered to comply with
ANSI/ANS–15.1 format, and the
definitions that follow are numbered as
subparagraphs with the format 1.1.x.
Some definitions are revised, deleted, or
redefined.
Section 2.0 of the TS are revised to
identify that there are no Safety Limits
or Limiting Safety System Settings
applicable to the facility, since all
reactor components and fuel have been
removed.
Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the TS were
revised to identify that the Access
Control Program was changed to more
accurately reflect the current site
conditions.
Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the TS relating
to Alarm Response are revised so that
the Containment Vessel (CV) Door Open
alarm was removed from this section
and incorporated into the specifications
related to ‘Containment’.
The specifications related to sump
level alarms are revised to provide
quantitative criteria on when sump level
alarms are required rather than the
subjective criteria of ‘kept dry’. The
requirement for the sump alarms to
annunciate at the Plum Brook Station
Communications Center is also revised
to require that the alarms annunciate at
a remote manned location which is
typically the Plum Brook Station
Communications Center.
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 relating to
Containment and Ventilation and the
associated Section 4 surveillance
requirements are revised to reflect that
the fact the airborne activity must be
controlled during all decommissioning
activities rather than only during the
time period that a ‘major portion of the
source term is present’.
Sections 3.5 and 3.6 relating to
Radiation and Effluent Monitoring and
the associated Section 4 surveillance
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46521
requirements are revised to reflect the
current site conditions and to provide
assurance that a program is
implemented that assures the worker
exposure to radiological hazards is
maintained as low as reasonably
achievable and in compliance with 10
CFR Part 20 limits. In addition, they
assure that effluents from the facility are
adequately monitored to protect the
public and environment from
radiological hazards.
Sections 5.0 relating to Site Features
are revised to conform to the format
suggested in ANSI/ANS–15.1 and to
more accurately reflect the current site
conditions that have evolved as the
decommissioning program has
progressed.
Sections 6.0 relating to
Administrative Controls contain
multiple revisions. The requirement to
perform an annual review is relocated to
section 6.9.2 to incorporate into the
annual review performed at the
direction of the Executive Safety Board.
The requirement to have Level 3
approval of temporary procedure
changes is removed since such changes
are controlled through site established
administrative procedures; and, the
responsibilities of the Decommissioning
Safety Committee are more clearly
defined.
The last sentence in Section 6.5 of the
TS is deleted.
Section 6.5 of the TS is revised to
read, ‘‘The Senior Project Engineer will
have direct authority over all activities
that take place at the Plum Brook
Reactor Facility (PBRF) and will be the
primary interface with on-site
Contractors supporting the
Decommissioning project.’’
The last sentence of Section 6.7 of the
TS is revised to read, ‘‘The authority to
fulfill this responsibility and perform
these functions will be granted by
Chairman of the NASA Safety, Health,
and Environmental Board.’’
The second sentence in Section 6.9.2
of the TS is revised to read, ‘‘Personnel
performing these reviews shall be
appropriately qualified and
experienced, and shall be members of,
or appointed by the NASA Safety,
Health, and Environmental Board.’’
Figure 1 on page 24 of the Technical
Specifications is revised to reflect the
change in the name of the Executive
Safety Board and to depict the direct
reporting relationship of the Health
Physics and Radiation Protection staff to
the NASA Project Radiation Safety
Officer.
Licenses TR–3 and R–93 are also
revised. The revision numbers
associated with issuance of this License
Amendment are inserted in place of
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
46522
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 160 / Monday, August 20, 2007 / Notices
‘‘Amendment 11’’ and ‘‘Amendment 7’’
respectively. Paragraph 2.B.3 is deleted
and replaced with a new paragraph
2.B.4 to read, ‘‘Pursuant to the Act and
Title 10, CFR, Chapter I, Parts 30, 40,
and 70, to receive, possess, and use in
amounts as required any byproduct,
source, or special nuclear material
without restriction to chemical or
physical form, for sample analysis or
instrument calibration or associated
with radioactive apparatus or
components.’’
Paragraph 2.A of License TR–3 is
revised by changing the last sentence to
read, ‘‘The PBRF is described in the
application for the full-term license
dated January 10, 1964 and amendments
thereto.’’
Paragraph 3 of Licenses TR–3 and R–
93 is revised to read, ‘‘NASA is
authorized to decommission the facility
in accordance with the
Decommissioning Plan for the Plum
Brook Reactor Facility approved by the
Commission by issuance of license
amendment dated March 20, 2002, as
revised pursuant to paragraph 3.A.1
below, and to perform Final Status
Surveys in accordance with the Final
Status Survey Plan for the Plum Brook
Reactor Facility* * *.’’
Paragraph 3.A of Licenses TR–3 and
R–93 is revised to read, ‘‘This
amendment authorizes inclusion of the
Decommissioning Plan for the Plum
Brook Reactor Facility and the Final
Status Survey Plan for the Plum Brook
Reactor Facility and their supplements
as supplements to the Final Safety
Analysis Report pursuant to 10 CFR
50.82(b)(5).’’
Paragraph 3.A.1 of Licenses TR–3 and
R–93 is revised to read, ‘‘The licensee
may make changes to the above plans
and revisions without prior U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approval provided the proposed
changes do not:’’ The change changes
the ‘‘word’’ in the original to ‘‘plans’’,
and would allow the licensee to make
changes to the Final Status Survey Plan
without prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approval.
Paragraph 3.A.1.c of Licenses TR–3
and R–93 is revised to read, ‘‘* * *
increase the derived concentration
guideline level and related minimum
detectable concentrations (for both scan
and fixed measurement methods);’’
Paragraph 3.A.3 of Licenses TR–3 and
R–93 is deleted.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Aug 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
(1) Do the changes involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative,
would not change plant systems or accident
analysis, and as such, would not affect
initiators of analyzed events or assumed
mitigation of accidents. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a
physical alteration to the plant or require
existing equipment to be operated in a
manner different from the present design.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident evaluated.
(3) Does the change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change has no effect on
existing plant equipment, operating
practices, or safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s
analysis for the proposed revisions 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 requests
involve no significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
The proposed change has no effect on
existing plant equipment, operating
practices, or safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis for the proposed
revisions 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 requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of August 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chad Glenn,
Project Manager, Decommissioning and
Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Federal
and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs.
[FR Doc. E7–16313 Filed 8–17–07; 8:45 am]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to
the provisions of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that
the Securities and Exchange
Commission will hold the following
meeting during the week of August 20,
2007:
A closed meeting will be held on
Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the
Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries
will attend the closed meeting. Certain
staff members who have an interest in
the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the
Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or
more of the exemptions set forth in 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and
(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7),
9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of
the scheduled matters at the closed
meeting.
Chairman Cox, as duty officer, voted
to consider the items listed for the
closed meeting in closed session.
The subject matter of the closed
meeting scheduled for Thursday,
August 23, 2007 will be:
Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive
actions;
Institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters related to enforcement
proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission
priorities require alterations in the
scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been
added, deleted or postponed, please
contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202)
551–5400.
Dated: August 15, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–16379 Filed 8–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 160 (Monday, August 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46521-46522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16313]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing (TAC Nos. J60622 and
J60626); Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Docket Nos. 50-30 and 50-185,
Sandusky, OH
Dates of amendment requests: May 18, 2005, May 12, 2006, February
9, 2007, and January 10, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The licensee (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)) has proposed to amend the
Facility Operating Licenses (TR-3 and R-93) of the two research
reactors located at Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Sandusky, Ohio. The
amendments to the licenses include revisions to the Technical
Specifications (TS), and incorporating a Final Status Survey Plan
(Revision 1). The same TS set applies equally to both licenses.
The Decommissioning Plan (DP) for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility,
approved by the Commission by issuance of license amendment dated March
20, 2002, will remained unchanged.
Proposed revisions to the TS include but are not limited to
administrative changes, revised facility descriptions, new definitions
and minor program changes. Specific proposed revisions include the
following:
Section 1 of the TS is revised to state that the TS apply to all
activities conducted under the provisions of the Licenses. It clarifies
that both reactors are both shutdown and dismantled, and there is no
fuel remaining at the facility. The facility was shutdown and ceased
operations in March 1973. The last shipment of irradiated fuel was made
on May 25, 1973, and all remaining fuel contaminated components were
shipped offsite by July 1973. Disposal of the Plum Brock reactor vessel
was completed in early 2005 and the core support components for the
Mock Up reactor were removed by the summer of 2003.
The `Definitions' in Section 2 of the TS are renumbered to comply
with ANSI/ANS-15.1 format, and the definitions that follow are numbered
as subparagraphs with the format 1.1.x. Some definitions are revised,
deleted, or redefined.
Section 2.0 of the TS are revised to identify that there are no
Safety Limits or Limiting Safety System Settings applicable to the
facility, since all reactor components and fuel have been removed.
Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the TS were revised to identify that the
Access Control Program was changed to more accurately reflect the
current site conditions.
Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the TS relating to Alarm Response are
revised so that the Containment Vessel (CV) Door Open alarm was removed
from this section and incorporated into the specifications related to
`Containment'.
The specifications related to sump level alarms are revised to
provide quantitative criteria on when sump level alarms are required
rather than the subjective criteria of `kept dry'. The requirement for
the sump alarms to annunciate at the Plum Brook Station Communications
Center is also revised to require that the alarms annunciate at a
remote manned location which is typically the Plum Brook Station
Communications Center.
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 relating to Containment and Ventilation and
the associated Section 4 surveillance requirements are revised to
reflect that the fact the airborne activity must be controlled during
all decommissioning activities rather than only during the time period
that a `major portion of the source term is present'.
Sections 3.5 and 3.6 relating to Radiation and Effluent Monitoring
and the associated Section 4 surveillance requirements are revised to
reflect the current site conditions and to provide assurance that a
program is implemented that assures the worker exposure to radiological
hazards is maintained as low as reasonably achievable and in compliance
with 10 CFR Part 20 limits. In addition, they assure that effluents
from the facility are adequately monitored to protect the public and
environment from radiological hazards.
Sections 5.0 relating to Site Features are revised to conform to
the format suggested in ANSI/ANS-15.1 and to more accurately reflect
the current site conditions that have evolved as the decommissioning
program has progressed.
Sections 6.0 relating to Administrative Controls contain multiple
revisions. The requirement to perform an annual review is relocated to
section 6.9.2 to incorporate into the annual review performed at the
direction of the Executive Safety Board. The requirement to have Level
3 approval of temporary procedure changes is removed since such changes
are controlled through site established administrative procedures; and,
the responsibilities of the Decommissioning Safety Committee are more
clearly defined.
The last sentence in Section 6.5 of the TS is deleted.
Section 6.5 of the TS is revised to read, ``The Senior Project
Engineer will have direct authority over all activities that take place
at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF) and will be the primary
interface with on-site Contractors supporting the Decommissioning
project.''
The last sentence of Section 6.7 of the TS is revised to read,
``The authority to fulfill this responsibility and perform these
functions will be granted by Chairman of the NASA Safety, Health, and
Environmental Board.''
The second sentence in Section 6.9.2 of the TS is revised to read,
``Personnel performing these reviews shall be appropriately qualified
and experienced, and shall be members of, or appointed by the NASA
Safety, Health, and Environmental Board.''
Figure 1 on page 24 of the Technical Specifications is revised to
reflect the change in the name of the Executive Safety Board and to
depict the direct reporting relationship of the Health Physics and
Radiation Protection staff to the NASA Project Radiation Safety
Officer.
Licenses TR-3 and R-93 are also revised. The revision numbers
associated with issuance of this License Amendment are inserted in
place of
[[Page 46522]]
``Amendment 11'' and ``Amendment 7'' respectively. Paragraph 2.B.3 is
deleted and replaced with a new paragraph 2.B.4 to read, ``Pursuant to
the Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter I, Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive,
possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or
special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical
form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with
radioactive apparatus or components.''
Paragraph 2.A of License TR-3 is revised by changing the last
sentence to read, ``The PBRF is described in the application for the
full-term license dated January 10, 1964 and amendments thereto.''
Paragraph 3 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``NASA is
authorized to decommission the facility in accordance with the
Decommissioning Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility approved by
the Commission by issuance of license amendment dated March 20, 2002,
as revised pursuant to paragraph 3.A.1 below, and to perform Final
Status Surveys in accordance with the Final Status Survey Plan for the
Plum Brook Reactor Facility* * *.''
Paragraph 3.A of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``This
amendment authorizes inclusion of the Decommissioning Plan for the Plum
Brook Reactor Facility and the Final Status Survey Plan for the Plum
Brook Reactor Facility and their supplements as supplements to the
Final Safety Analysis Report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5).''
Paragraph 3.A.1 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``The
licensee may make changes to the above plans and revisions without
prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval provided the proposed
changes do not:'' The change changes the ``word'' in the original to
``plans'', and would allow the licensee to make changes to the Final
Status Survey Plan without prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approval.
Paragraph 3.A.1.c of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``*
* * increase the derived concentration guideline level and related
minimum detectable concentrations (for both scan and fixed measurement
methods);'' Paragraph 3.A.3 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is deleted.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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) Do the changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative, would not change plant
systems or accident analysis, and as such, would not affect
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the
plant or require existing equipment to be operated in a manner
different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident evaluated.
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment,
operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for the
proposed revisions 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 requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment,
operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for the proposed
revisions 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 requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chad Glenn,
Project Manager, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-16313 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
