[Federal Register: January 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 123-126]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja09-49]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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
http://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, http://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