Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 123-126 [E8-31207]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
to participate or continue their
participation in MCC’s policy
improvement process. Countries
participating in the policy improvement
process are asked to develop and
implement a forward-looking action
plan that outlines the steps they plan to
take to improve performance on certain
policy criteria. They then periodically
report on progress made on the plan.
Finally, a number of countries that
performed well on the quantitative
elements of the selection criteria (i.e., on
the policy indicators) were not chosen
as eligible countries for FY09. As
discussed above, the Board considered a
variety of factors in addition to the
country’s performance on the policy
indicators in determining whether they
were appropriate candidates for
assistance (e.g., the country’s
commitment to fighting corruption and
promoting democratic governance; the
availability of appropriated funds; and
the countries in which MCC would
likely have the best opportunity to
reduce poverty and generate economic
growth).
Selection for Compact Negotiation
The Board also authorized MCC to
invite Indonesia, Zambia, and Colombia
to submit a proposal for a compact, as
described in section 609 of the Act (22
U.S.C. 7708) (previously eligible
countries that were reselected will not
be asked to submit another proposal for
FY09 assistance). MCC has posted
guidance on the MCC Web site (https://
www.mcc.gov) regarding the
development and submission of MCA
program proposals. Submission of a
proposal is not a guarantee that MCC
will finalize a compact with an eligible
country. Any MCA assistance provided
under section 605 of the Act will be
contingent on the successful negotiation
of a mutually agreeable compact
between the eligible country and MCC,
approval of the compact by the Board,
and availability of funds.
Dated: December 22, 2008.
John C. Mantini,
Acting General Counsel, Millennium
Challenge Corporation.
[FR Doc. E8–30965 Filed 12–31–08; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 9211–03–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–255]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
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) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. DPR–
20 issued to Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (ENO, the licensee), for
operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant
located in Covert, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would
revise Appendix A, Technical
Specifications (TS), as they apply to the
spent fuel pool (SFP) storage
requirements in TS section 3.7.16 and
the criticality requirements for the
Region I SFP and north tilt pit fuel
storage racks, in TS section 4.3.1.1.
The proposed change, in accordance
with Title 10 of Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.68, Criticality
accident requirements, would establish
the effective neutron multiplication
factor (Keff) limits for Region I storage
racks based on analyses to maintain Keff
less than 1.0 when flooded with
unborated water, and less than, or equal
to (≤) 0.95 when flooded with water
having a minimum boron concentration
of 850 parts per million (ppm) during
normal operations. The proposed
change was evaluated for both normal
operation and accident conditions. This
proposed change provides an analysis
that does not credit boron in the
Carborundum ® poison plates and
incorporates a conservative swelling
model of the plates in the Region I
storage racks.
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
123
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 amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There is no significant increase in the
probability of an accidental misloading of
fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool racks
when considering the presence of soluble
boron in the pool water for criticality control.
Fuel assembly placement would continue to
be controlled by approved fuel handling
procedures and would be in accordance with
the TS fuel storage rack configuration
limitations.
There is no significant increase in the
consequences of the accidental misloading of
fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool racks
because the criticality analyses demonstrate
that the pool would remain subcritical with
margin following an accidental misloading if
the pool contains an adequate boron
concentration. The TS 3.7.15 limitation on
minimum spent fuel pool boron
concentration and plant procedures ensure
that an adequate boron concentration will be
maintained.
There is no significant increase in the
probability of a fuel assembly drop accident
in the spent fuel pool when considering the
presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel
pool water for criticality control. The
handling of fuel assemblies in the spent fuel
is performed in borated water. The criticality
analysis has showed the reactivity increase
with a fuel assembly drop accident in both
a vertical and horizontal orientation is
bounded by the misloading accident.
Therefore, the consequences of a fuel
assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool
would not increase significantly due to the
proposed change.
The spent fuel pool TS boron
concentration requirement in TS 3.7.15
requires a minimum of 1720 ppm which
bounds the analysis. Soluble boron has been
maintained in the spent fuel pool water as
required by TS and controlled by procedures.
The present criticality safety analyses for
Region II of the spent fuel pool credits the
same soluble boron concentration of 850 ppm
to maintain a Keff ≤ 0.95 under normal
conditions and 1350 ppm to maintain a Keff
≤ 0.95 under accident scenarios as do the
analyses for the proposed change for Region
I. Crediting soluble boron in the Region I
spent fuel pool criticality analysis would
have no effect on normal pool operation and
maintenance. Thus, there is no change to the
probability or the consequences of the boron
dilution event in the spent fuel pool.
Since soluble boron is maintained in the
spent fuel pool water, implementation of the
proposed changes would have no effect on
the normal pool operation and maintenance.
Also, since soluble boron is present in the
spent fuel pool a dilution event has always
been a possibility. The loss of substantial
amounts of soluble boron from the spent fuel
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
124
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
pool was evaluated as part of the analyses in
support of this proposed amendment. The
analyses use the same soluble boron
concentrations as were used in previous
analyses for Region II spent fuel storage
racks. In the unlikely event that soluble
boron in the spent fuel pool is completely
diluted, the fuel in Region I of the spent fuel
pool would remain subcritical by a design
margin of at least 0.02 delta Keff, so the Keff
of the fuel in Region I will remain below 1.0.
Therefore, the limitations on boron
concentration have not changed and would
not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident.
There is no increase in the probability or
consequences of the loss of normal cooling to
the spent fuel pool water, when considering
the presence of soluble boron in the pool
water for subcriticality control, since a high
concentration of soluble boron is always
maintained in the spent fuel pool.
The criticality analyses documented in
AREVA NP report ANP–2779NP–001,
‘‘Palisades SFP Region I Criticality
Evaluation,’’ show, at a 0.95% [percent]
probability and a 95% confidence level (95/
95) that Keff is less than the regulatory limit
in 10 CFR 50.68 of 0.95 under borated
conditions, or a limit of 1.0 with unborated
water. Therefore, the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not
increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of
any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Spent fuel handling accidents have been
analyzed in Sections 14.11, ‘‘Postulated Cask
Drop Accidents,’’ and 14.19, ‘‘Fuel Handling
Incident,’’ of the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report. Criticality accidents in the
spent fuel pool have been analyzed in
previous criticality evaluations, which are
the bases for the present TS.
The existing TS allow storage of fuel
assemblies with a maximum planar average
U–235 enrichment of 4.95 weight percent in
the Region I fuel storage rack. The proposed
specifications would restrict fuel enrichment
to lower values in different areas of the
Region I storage racks. The possibility of
placing a fuel assembly with greater
enrichment than allowed currently exists but
is controlled by fuel manufacturer’s
procedures and plant handling procedures.
Manufacturer’s and plant procedu[r]al
controls would remain in place. Lowering the
allowed enrichments does not create a new
or different kind of accident.
ENO considered the effects of a
mispositioned fuel assembly. The proposed
loading restrictions include locations that are
prohibited from containing any fuel.
Administrative controls are in place to
restrict fuel moves to those locations. These
include procedures to develop the plans for
fuel movement and operate the fuel handling
equipment. These procedures include
appropriate reviews and verifications to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
ensure design requirements are maintained.
ENO is also proposing to add new limiting
conditions for operation and surveillance
requirements in TS 3.7.16 to provide
additional assurance that the requirements
are met.
Furthermore, the existing TS contain
limitations on the spent fuel pool boron
concentration that conservatively bound the
required boron concentration of the new
criticality analyses. Currently, TS 3.7.15
requires a minimum boron concentration of
1720 ppm. Since soluble boron is maintained
in the spent fuel pool water, implementation
of the proposed changes would have no effect
on the normal pool operation and
maintenance. Since soluble boron is present
in the spent fuel pool, a dilution event has
always been a possibility. The loss of
substantial amounts of soluble boron from
the spent fuel pool was evaluated as part of
the analysis in support of Amendment 207.
That analysis also demonstrated that due to
the large volume of unborated water that
would need to be added and displaced, and
the long duration of the event, the condition
would be detected and corrected promptly.
The analyses that support the current request
use the same soluble boron concentrations as
were used in previous analyses for Region II
spent fuel storage racks. In the unlikely event
that soluble boron in the spent fuel pool is
completely diluted, the fuel in Region I of the
spent fuel pool would remain subcritical by
a design margin of at least 0.02 delta Keff, so
the Keff of the fuel in Region I would remain
below 1.0.
The combination of controls to prevent a
mispositioned fuel assembly, ability to
readily identify and correct a dilution event,
and relatively high concentration of soluble
boron supports a conclusion that a new or
different kind of accident is not created.
Under the proposed amendment, no
changes are made to the fuel storage racks
themselves, to any other systems, or to any
plant structures. Therefore, the change will
not result in any other change in the plant
configuration or equipment design.
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 amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Detailed analysis with approved and
benchmarked methods has shown with a
95% probability at a 95% confidence level,
that the Keff, of the Region I fuel storage
racks in the spent fuel pool, including biases,
tolerances and uncertainties is less than 1.0
with unborated water, and less than or equal
to 0.95 with 850 ppm of soluble boron
credited. In addition, the effects of abnormal
and accident conditions have been evaluated
to demonstrate that under credible
conditions the Keff will not exceed 0.95 with
1350 ppm soluble boron credited. The
current TS requirement for minimum spent
fuel pool boron concentration is 1720 ppm,
which provides assurance that the spent fuel
pool would remain subcritical.
The current analysis basis for the Region II
fuel storage racks is a maximum Keff of less
than 1.0 when flooded with unborated water,
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded
with water having a boron concentration of
850 ppm. In addition, the Keff in accident or
abnormal operating conditions is less than
0.95 with 1350 ppm of soluble boron. These
values are not affected by the proposed
change.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in the 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, TWB–
05–B01M, 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. 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
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 person(s)
may file a request for a hearing with
respect to issuance of the amendment to
the subject facility operating license and
any person(s) whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request
via electronic submission through the
NRC E-filing system 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 person(s) 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
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
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.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated on August
28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
125
process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents
over the Internet, or in some cases to
mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper
copies of their filings unless they seek
a waiver in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
petitioner/requestor must contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling
(301) 415–1677, to request (1) a digital
ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and/or (2) creation of an
electronic docket for the proceeding
(even in instances in which the
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or
representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each
petitioner/requestor will need to
download the Workplace Forms
Viewer TM to access the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), a
component of the E-Filing system. The
Workplace Forms Viewer TM is free and
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital
ID certificate is available on NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has
obtained a digital ID certificate, had a
docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to
intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in
accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the filer submits its
documents through EIE. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to
the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing
system time-stamps the document and
sends the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
126
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2009 / Notices
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may
seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact
Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC
electronic filing Help Desk, which is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The electronic filing Help Desk can be
contacted by telephone at 1–866–672–
7640 or by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file a
motion, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to
submit documents in paper format.
Such filings must be submitted 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; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission, the presiding officer, or
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition and/or request should
be granted and/or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). To be timely,
filings must be submitted no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due
date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.
Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:23 Dec 31, 2008
Jkt 217001
Social Security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, Participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submissions.
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment dated
November 25, 2008, which is available
for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
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/
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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of December.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh Chawla,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
3–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–31207 Filed 12–31–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Federal Register Notice
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
DATES: Weeks of December 29, 2008;
January 5, 12, 19, 26, February 2, 2009.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
Week of December 29, 2008
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of December 29, 2008.
Week of January 5, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of January 5, 2009.
Week of January 19, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of January 19, 2009.
Week of January 26, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of January 26, 2009.
Week of February 2, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of February 2, 2009.
*
*
*
*
*
* 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:
Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/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,
Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD:
301–415–2100, or by e-mail at
rohn.brown@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
This notice is distributed by mail to
several hundred subscribers; if you no
longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please
contact the Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969).
In addition, distribution of this meeting
notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in
receiving this Commission meeting
schedule electronically, please send an
electronic message to
darlene.wright@nrc.gov.
Dated: December 29, 2008.
Rochelle C. Bavol,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–31266 Filed 12–30–08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Week of January 12, 2009—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of January 12, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02JAN1.SGM
02JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 123-126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31207]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 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) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-20 issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO, the licensee),
for operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant located in Covert,
Michigan.
The proposed amendment would revise Appendix A, Technical
Specifications (TS), as they apply to the spent fuel pool (SFP) storage
requirements in TS section 3.7.16 and the criticality requirements for
the Region I SFP and north tilt pit fuel storage racks, in TS section
4.3.1.1.
The proposed change, in accordance with Title 10 of Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.68, Criticality accident requirements, would
establish the effective neutron multiplication factor (Keff) limits for
Region I storage racks based on analyses to maintain Keff less than 1.0
when flooded with unborated water, and less than, or equal to (<=) 0.95
when flooded with water having a minimum boron concentration of 850
parts per million (ppm) during normal operations. The proposed change
was evaluated for both normal operation and accident conditions. This
proposed change provides an analysis that does not credit boron in the
Carborundum [supreg] poison plates and incorporates a conservative
swelling model of the plates in the Region I storage racks.
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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There is no significant increase in the probability of an
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool
racks when considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool
water for criticality control. Fuel assembly placement would
continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures and
would be in accordance with the TS fuel storage rack configuration
limitations.
There is no significant increase in the consequences of the
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool
racks because the criticality analyses demonstrate that the pool
would remain subcritical with margin following an accidental
misloading if the pool contains an adequate boron concentration. The
TS 3.7.15 limitation on minimum spent fuel pool boron concentration
and plant procedures ensure that an adequate boron concentration
will be maintained.
There is no significant increase in the probability of a fuel
assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool when considering the
presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water for
criticality control. The handling of fuel assemblies in the spent
fuel is performed in borated water. The criticality analysis has
showed the reactivity increase with a fuel assembly drop accident in
both a vertical and horizontal orientation is bounded by the
misloading accident. Therefore, the consequences of a fuel assembly
drop accident in the spent fuel pool would not increase
significantly due to the proposed change.
The spent fuel pool TS boron concentration requirement in TS
3.7.15 requires a minimum of 1720 ppm which bounds the analysis.
Soluble boron has been maintained in the spent fuel pool water as
required by TS and controlled by procedures. The present criticality
safety analyses for Region II of the spent fuel pool credits the
same soluble boron concentration of 850 ppm to maintain a Keff <=
0.95 under normal conditions and 1350 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 0.95
under accident scenarios as do the analyses for the proposed change
for Region I. Crediting soluble boron in the Region I spent fuel
pool criticality analysis would have no effect on normal pool
operation and maintenance. Thus, there is no change to the
probability or the consequences of the boron dilution event in the
spent fuel pool.
Since soluble boron is maintained in the spent fuel pool water,
implementation of the proposed changes would have no effect on the
normal pool operation and maintenance. Also, since soluble boron is
present in the spent fuel pool a dilution event has always been a
possibility. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from
the spent fuel
[[Page 124]]
pool was evaluated as part of the analyses in support of this
proposed amendment. The analyses use the same soluble boron
concentrations as were used in previous analyses for Region II spent
fuel storage racks. In the unlikely event that soluble boron in the
spent fuel pool is completely diluted, the fuel in Region I of the
spent fuel pool would remain subcritical by a design margin of at
least 0.02 delta Keff, so the Keff of the fuel in Region I will
remain below 1.0. Therefore, the limitations on boron concentration
have not changed and would not result in a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the
loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool water, when
considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for
subcriticality control, since a high concentration of soluble boron
is always maintained in the spent fuel pool.
The criticality analyses documented in AREVA NP report ANP-
2779NP-001, ``Palisades SFP Region I Criticality Evaluation,'' show,
at a 0.95% [percent] probability and a 95% confidence level (95/95)
that Keff is less than the regulatory limit in 10 CFR 50.68 of 0.95
under borated conditions, or a limit of 1.0 with unborated water.
Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are
not increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Spent fuel handling accidents have been analyzed in Sections
14.11, ``Postulated Cask Drop Accidents,'' and 14.19, ``Fuel
Handling Incident,'' of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Criticality accidents in the spent fuel pool have been analyzed in
previous criticality evaluations, which are the bases for the
present TS.
The existing TS allow storage of fuel assemblies with a maximum
planar average U-235 enrichment of 4.95 weight percent in the Region
I fuel storage rack. The proposed specifications would restrict fuel
enrichment to lower values in different areas of the Region I
storage racks. The possibility of placing a fuel assembly with
greater enrichment than allowed currently exists but is controlled
by fuel manufacturer's procedures and plant handling procedures.
Manufacturer's and plant procedu[r]al controls would remain in
place. Lowering the allowed enrichments does not create a new or
different kind of accident.
ENO considered the effects of a mispositioned fuel assembly. The
proposed loading restrictions include locations that are prohibited
from containing any fuel. Administrative controls are in place to
restrict fuel moves to those locations. These include procedures to
develop the plans for fuel movement and operate the fuel handling
equipment. These procedures include appropriate reviews and
verifications to ensure design requirements are maintained. ENO is
also proposing to add new limiting conditions for operation and
surveillance requirements in TS 3.7.16 to provide additional
assurance that the requirements are met.
Furthermore, the existing TS contain limitations on the spent
fuel pool boron concentration that conservatively bound the required
boron concentration of the new criticality analyses. Currently, TS
3.7.15 requires a minimum boron concentration of 1720 ppm. Since
soluble boron is maintained in the spent fuel pool water,
implementation of the proposed changes would have no effect on the
normal pool operation and maintenance. Since soluble boron is
present in the spent fuel pool, a dilution event has always been a
possibility. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from
the spent fuel pool was evaluated as part of the analysis in support
of Amendment 207. That analysis also demonstrated that due to the
large volume of unborated water that would need to be added and
displaced, and the long duration of the event, the condition would
be detected and corrected promptly. The analyses that support the
current request use the same soluble boron concentrations as were
used in previous analyses for Region II spent fuel storage racks. In
the unlikely event that soluble boron in the spent fuel pool is
completely diluted, the fuel in Region I of the spent fuel pool
would remain subcritical by a design margin of at least 0.02 delta
Keff, so the Keff of the fuel in Region I would remain below 1.0.
The combination of controls to prevent a mispositioned fuel
assembly, ability to readily identify and correct a dilution event,
and relatively high concentration of soluble boron supports a
conclusion that a new or different kind of accident is not created.
Under the proposed amendment, no changes are made to the fuel
storage racks themselves, to any other systems, or to any plant
structures. Therefore, the change will not result in any other
change in the plant configuration or equipment design.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Detailed analysis with approved and benchmarked methods has
shown with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level, that the
Keff, of the Region I fuel storage racks in the spent fuel pool,
including biases, tolerances and uncertainties is less than 1.0 with
unborated water, and less than or equal to 0.95 with 850 ppm of
soluble boron credited. In addition, the effects of abnormal and
accident conditions have been evaluated to demonstrate that under
credible conditions the Keff will not exceed 0.95 with 1350 ppm
soluble boron credited. The current TS requirement for minimum spent
fuel pool boron concentration is 1720 ppm, which provides assurance
that the spent fuel pool would remain subcritical.
The current analysis basis for the Region II fuel storage racks
is a maximum Keff of less than 1.0 when flooded with unborated
water, and less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded with water having
a boron concentration of 850 ppm. In addition, the Keff in accident
or abnormal operating conditions is less than 0.95 with 1350 ppm of
soluble boron. These values are not affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the 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, TWB-05-B01M, 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. 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 O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
[[Page 125]]
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
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
request via electronic submission through the NRC E-filing system 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 person(s) 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 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 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.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents
over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or
[[Page 126]]
their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital
ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed
so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The electronic filing Help Desk can be contacted
by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submissions.
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment dated November 25, 2008,
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR,
located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically 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/
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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh Chawla,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-31207 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
