Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206, 10068-10069 [E8-3472]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10068
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2008 / Notices
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
AS10/Environmental Engineering and
Occupational Health Office, SSP
Transition and Property Disposal,
Marshall Space Flight Center, Building
4249/100C, Marshall Space Flight
Center, AL 35812, 1–256–544–7201, or
electronic mail at
Donna.L.Holland@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SSP is
an extremely large and complex
program spanning decades and
requiring the efforts of a broad spectrum
of talent located throughout NASA and
many commercial entities. On January
14, 2004, President George W. Bush
presented a new U.S. Space Exploration
Policy to the nation. In the
announcement, the President directed
NASA to use the Space Shuttle to fulfill
its obligation to complete assembly of
the International Space Station and then
to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010.
Consequently, SSP Transition and
Retirement is being proposed as a
structured process for the disposition of
SSP real and personal property
consisting of a coordinated series of
actions. SSP real and personal property
would be evaluated in accordance with
NPR 8800.15, ‘‘Real Estate Management
Program Implementation Manual,’’ and
NPR 4300.1, ‘‘NASA Personal Property
Disposal Procedural Requirements,’’ to
select the best option for disposal. The
Draft SSP PEA addresses the
environmental impacts associated with
implementing a series of actions in the
structured process for disposition of
SSP real and personal property.
For the purpose of real and personal
property disposition, the overall goals of
SSP Transition and Retirement are to
methodically assess the SSP assets and
provide for their disposition in a
manner that fully realizes any remaining
value of those assets, and to ensure that
the actions taken by NASA comply with
applicable federal, state and local laws
and regulations. The primary decision
to be made by NASA, supported by
information contained in the PEA, is the
manner of disposition of the SSP assets.
NASA has applied a systematic and
interdisciplinary approach to ensure
that the environmental resources at each
site were analyzed and potential issues
identified for the disposition of SSPrelated real and personal property.
Shuttle-related personal property
includes hundreds of thousands of
items ranging from common parts to
complex tooling and flight hardware.
The disposition of common parts would
have no potential for significant impacts
to the environment and is not analyzed
in the PEA. Personal property, such as
complex tooling and flight hardware,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:34 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
may have the potential to adversely
affect the environment and is analyzed
in the PEA. The environmental impacts
of principal concern are those that
would result from disposition of
Historic Resources. As the SSP
approaches the end of its mission, a
variety of buildings and facilities at
several NASA installations will be
modified for other NASA Programs or
will no longer be of use to NASA. For
any SSP building or facility no longer
needed by NASA, NASA will initiate
the standard process for addressing
excess infrastructure. NASA will
conduct any additional NEPA analysis,
as necessary and appropriate, before
final decisions on the disposition of SSP
infrastructure are made. If any such SSP
assets are listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places,
NASA will take no action that would
affect any such property until the
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 process is complete.
Under NASA’s Proposed Action, SSP
transition and property disposal
activities would be expected to occur at
the following NASA sites:
—Dryden Flight Research Center,
Edwards Air Force Base, California
—George C. Marshall Space Flight
Center, Huntsville, Alabama
—John F. Kennedy Space Center,
Brevard County, Florida
—John C. Stennis Space Center,
Hancock County, Mississippi
—Johnson Space Center El Paso
Forward Operating Location, El Paso,
Texas
—Johnson Space Center Ellington Field,
Houston, Texas
—Johnson Space Center White Sands
Test Facility (and the U.S. Army’s
White Sands Missile Range), Las
Cruces, New Mexico
—Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,
Houston, Texas
—Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia
—Michoud Assembly Facility, New
Orleans, Louisiana
The Draft PEA may be viewed at the
following NASA locations by contacting
the pertinent Freedom of Information
Act Office or by telephoning:
(a) NASA, Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, CA 94035 (650–604–
3273);
(b) NASA, Dryden Flight Research
Center, Edwards, CA 93523 (661–276–
2704);
(c) NASA, Glenn Research Center at
Lewis Field, Cleveland, OH 44135 (1–
866–404–3642);
(d) NASA, Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301–286–
4721);
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(e) NASA, John C. Stennis Space
Center, MS 39529 (228–688–2118);
(f) NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center, Houston, TX 77058 (281–483–
8612);
(g) NASA, Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA 23681 (757–864–2497);
(h) NASA, Michoud Assembly
Facility, New Orleans, LA 70189 (504–
257–2629); and
(i) NASA, White Sands Test Facility,
Las Cruces, NM 88004 (505–524–5024).
In addition the Draft PEA may be
examined at:
(j) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors
Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove
Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109.
Written public input and comments
on alternatives and environmental
issues and concerns associated with
proposed SSP transition and property
disposal activities are hereby requested.
Olga M. Dominguez,
Assistant Administrator for Infrastructure
and Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–3405 Filed 2–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286; License
Nos. DPR–26 and DPR–64]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC,
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC,
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit
Nos. 2 and 3; Receipt of Request for
Action Under 10 CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by petition
dated September 28, 2007, Mr.
Sherwood Martinelli, representing
Friends United for Sustainable Energy
(Petitioner), has requested that the NRC
(1) issue orders, effective immediately,
to suspend the NRC licenses for the
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2
and 3 (Indian Point) until the new
emergency notification siren system is
fully approved by both the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the
NRC and (2) fine Entergy Nuclear
Operations (Entergy, or the licensee)
$130,000 per day from the date of his
petition (i.e., September 28, 2007) until
Entergy complies with the NRC’s
Confirmatory Order of January 31, 2006,
which requires the licensee to install
backup power for the Indian Point siren
system. On January 24, 2008, the
Petitioner amended the petition citing
concerns with recently discovered
corrosion on sirens for the new
emergency notification system. In the
amended petition, the Petitioner
requested that the NRC (1) issue an
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 37 / Monday, February 25, 2008 / Notices
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
order to immediately place both Indian
Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 in Cold
Shutdown, (2) suspend Entergy’s license
to operate Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and
3 until such time as they are in full
compliance with their design basis
threat, current licensing basis, and all
NRC rules and regulations, and (3) fine
Entergy on a daily basis for no less than
$500,000 until such time as the sirens
have been fully approved by all levels
of government.
The request is being treated pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission’s
regulations. The request has been
referred to the Director of the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). On
November 1 and December 19, 2007, the
Petitioner was informed in telephone
calls that the request for immediate
action for the original petition was
denied. In addition, on January 30,
2008, the Petitioner was informed by
electronic transmission that the request
for immediate action for the amended
petition was also denied. The Petitioner
participated in a conference call with
the NRR Petition Review Board (PRB)
on December 21, 2007, to discuss the
petition. The additional information
provided by the Petitioner was
considered by the PRB before making its
final recommendation. By letter dated
February 12, 2008, the Director accepted
for review, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206,
the Petitioner’s concerns regarding (1)
the licensee’s failure to implement the
new emergency notification siren
system in a timely manner and (2) the
recently identified corrosion found on
sirens for the new emergency
notification system. As provided by
Section 2.206, appropriate action will be
taken on this petition within a
reasonable time.
A copy of the petition and addenda
can be located at Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
Systems Accession Nos. ML072760602
and ML080250075, respectively, and are
available for inspection at the
Commission’s Public Document Room,
located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day
of February 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J. E. Dyer,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–3472 Filed 2–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:34 Feb 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–395]
South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company,Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station; Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
50, (10 CFR), Section 50.46,
‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core
cooling systems for light-water nuclear
power reactors,’’ (10 CFR 50.46) and 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix K, ‘‘ECCS
Evaluation Models,’’ (Appendix K) for
the Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–12, issued to South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G, the
licensee), for operation of the Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS),
located in Fairfield County, South
Carolina. Therefore, as specified in 10
CFR 51.21, the NRC has performed an
environmental assessment as described
in this notice and has made a finding of
no significant impact.
The action proposed by the licensee
also included a request for an
exemption from 10 CFR 50.44,
‘‘Combustible gas control for nuclear
power reactors,’’ (10 CFR 50.44). The
proposed exemption from 10 CFR 50.44
is not being considered further by the
NRC staff because revisions to 10 CFR
50.44 (68 FR 54123, dated September
16, 2003), such that it does not refer to
specific types of zirconium cladding,
remove the need for such an exemption.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow a
third cycle of irradiation (i.e., burnup)
for one lead test assembly (LTA)
containing fuel rods with advanced
cladding alloys. This third cycle of
irradiation is expected to begin in the
Cycle 18 core for VCSNS in the spring
of 2008. An exemption previously
issued by the NRC on January 14, 2005,
authorized the use of four LTAs up to
a lead rod average burnup limit of
62,000 megawatt days per metric ton
uranium (MWd/MTU). The cladding in
two of those four LTAs is entirely
Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding. Each of
the other two LTAs uses sixteen fuel
rods with AXIOMTM cladding with the
remainder of the rods using Optimized
ZIRLOTM cladding. Based upon the
results of examinations of these four
LTAs during the VCSNS Cycle 17/18
refueling outage, the licensee may select
either one of the Optimized ZIRLOTM
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10069
LTAs or one of the LTAs containing
both Optimized ZIRLOTM plus
AXIOMTM cladding for the third cycle of
irradiation. The third cycle of
irradiation is expected to take the LTA
from a burnup of about 55,000 up to
75,000 MWd/MTU. The burnup limits
are not part of the technical
specifications (TS), but are design bases
limits, and limit the current fuel rodaverage burnup to less than or equal to
62,000 MWd/MTU. The proposed action
is in accordance with the licensee’s
application dated May 31, 2007, as
supplemented by letter dated October
11, 2007. Also, information in the
licensee’s letters dated September 3 and
November 11, 2004, that supported the
exemption previously issued on January
14, 2005, has been considered in this
action.
The Need for the Proposed Action
As the licensee states in its letter
dated September 3, 2004, ‘‘As the
nuclear industry pursues longer
operating cycles with increased fuel
discharge burnups and more aggressive
fuel management, corrosion
performance requirements for nuclear
fuel cladding become more demanding.
In addition, fuel rod internal pressures
(resulting from increased fuel duty, use
of integral fuel burnable absorbers
(IFBAs) and corrosion/temperature
feedback effects) have become more
limiting with respect to fuel rod design
criteria. Available industry data [* * *]
indicate the corrosion resistance
improves for cladding with a lower tin
content,’’ and ‘‘In addition,
developmental testing has shown that
small additions of some alloying
elements will further improve the
corrosion resistance, microstructure and
mechanical properties of the cladding,’’
and ‘‘To meet these needs,
Westinghouse Electric Company has
developed a lead test assembly program
in cooperation with the V.C. Summer
Nuclear Station. One element of the
program is use of Optimized ZIRLOTM
cladding [* * *]’’ and another element
of the program is the use of LTAs with
AXIOMTM cladding.
As the licensee states in its
application, 10 CFR 50.46 specifically
refers to fuel with Zircaloy or ZIRLOTM
cladding and does not include
Optimized ZIRLOTM or AXIOMTM
cladding. Appendix K, paragraph I.A.5,
references an analysis that utilizes the
Baker-Just equation which assumes use
of a zirconium alloy different than the
Optimized ZIRLOTM or AXIOMTM
cladding used in the LTAs. Therefore,
the exemption is needed because the
NRC regulations identified above
specifically refer to light-water reactors
E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM
25FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10068-10069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3472]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2,
LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10
CFR 2.206
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated September 28, 2007,
Mr. Sherwood Martinelli, representing Friends United for Sustainable
Energy (Petitioner), has requested that the NRC (1) issue orders,
effective immediately, to suspend the NRC licenses for the Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (Indian Point) until the new emergency
notification siren system is fully approved by both the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the NRC and (2) fine Entergy Nuclear
Operations (Entergy, or the licensee) $130,000 per day from the date of
his petition (i.e., September 28, 2007) until Entergy complies with the
NRC's Confirmatory Order of January 31, 2006, which requires the
licensee to install backup power for the Indian Point siren system. On
January 24, 2008, the Petitioner amended the petition citing concerns
with recently discovered corrosion on sirens for the new emergency
notification system. In the amended petition, the Petitioner requested
that the NRC (1) issue an
[[Page 10069]]
order to immediately place both Indian Point Unit Nos. 2 and 3 in Cold
Shutdown, (2) suspend Entergy's license to operate Indian Point Unit
Nos. 2 and 3 until such time as they are in full compliance with their
design basis threat, current licensing basis, and all NRC rules and
regulations, and (3) fine Entergy on a daily basis for no less than
$500,000 until such time as the sirens have been fully approved by all
levels of government.
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the
Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director
of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). On November 1 and
December 19, 2007, the Petitioner was informed in telephone calls that
the request for immediate action for the original petition was denied.
In addition, on January 30, 2008, the Petitioner was informed by
electronic transmission that the request for immediate action for the
amended petition was also denied. The Petitioner participated in a
conference call with the NRR Petition Review Board (PRB) on December
21, 2007, to discuss the petition. The additional information provided
by the Petitioner was considered by the PRB before making its final
recommendation. By letter dated February 12, 2008, the Director
accepted for review, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, the Petitioner's
concerns regarding (1) the licensee's failure to implement the new
emergency notification siren system in a timely manner and (2) the
recently identified corrosion found on sirens for the new emergency
notification system. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action
will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time.
A copy of the petition and addenda can be located at Agencywide
Documents Access and Management Systems Accession Nos. ML072760602 and
ML080250075, respectively, and are available for inspection at the
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of February 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J. E. Dyer,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-3472 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
