[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11157-11159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5352]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368]


Entergy 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 (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating 
License (FOL) No. DPR-51 and FOL No. NPF-6, issued to Entergy 
Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One 
(ANO), Units 1 and 2 (ANO-1 and ANO-2), respectively, located in Pope 
County, Arkansas.
    The proposed amendments would allow the licensee to use the spent 
fuel crane (L-3 crane) to lift heavy loads in excess of 100 tons. 
Specifically the licensee is requesting approval to use the upgraded L-
3 crane for loads up to a total of 130 tons.
    The amendment application was submitted on an exigent basis because 
the need for a license amendment was identified as a result of recent 
discussions between the licensee and NRC staff. The licensee had 
previously believed that prior NRC approval was not required to use the 
upgraded L-3 crane for heavy loads in excess of 100 tons. Approval to 
use the upgraded L-3 crane on an exigent basis is necessary for several 
reasons, including: (1) Numerous activities associated with loading and 
un-loading the cask are required to be demonstrated by the user prior 
to the first usage with spent fuel, in accordance with the certificate 
of compliance for the new spent fuel storage cask system; (2) prior to 
the certificate-required demonstrations, detailed checkout of the 
equipment and sufficient training, including on-the-job use of the 
equipment, must occur to provide assurance of craft and supervisory 
proficiency; (3) there is insufficient space in the ANO-2 spent fuel 
pool and dry storage racks to store all of the fuel required for the 
fall 2003 ANO-2 refueling outage, unless at least one cask is loaded; 
(4) another cask needs to be loaded prior to the refueling outage to 
avoid having to perform an in-core shuffle of control element 
assemblies; and (5) the loading of one more cask (total of three) prior 
to the fall refueling outage, combined with storage spaces recovered as 
a result of installation of the new neutron poison panels, will ensure 
capability of full core discharge to the spent fuel pool following the 
refueling outage. The licensee provided a detailed timetable of the 
above activities which demonstrates over the next seven months the 
complexity involved with managing the spent fuel pool inventories. In 
addition, the licensee believes that the need to optimize pool storage 
space, the increased impact on the ANO-2 spent fuel pool activity 
management, and the possible constraints described above, creates a 
significant plant cost and fuel control concern. Therefore, the 
licensee has requested the proposed amendment be issued by March 31, 
2003.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The potential load carrying capability of the new L-3 crane has 
been increased from 100 tons to 130 tons. The transporting of a 
spent fuel cask is the maximum load that the crane is designed to 
handle. The process for transporting of a cask is essentially 
unchanged from that previously performed. Once a cask is loaded with 
spent fuel it is lifted from the cask loading pit, transported to 
the hatch, and lowered to the railroad bay. This arrangement is such 
that the cask is never carried over the spent fuel pool. The 
transport height of the cask has been increased to a minimum of 1.5 
feet and the impact limiters used under the previous cask transport 
process have been eliminated. Because the crane is single failure 
proof, a postulated cask drop is no longer a credible event; 
therefore, no [a]effects on plant operation are anticipated to occur 
and the structural integrity of the spent fuel cask will not be 
impaired.
    The probability of a load drop is reduced from that previously 
analyzed since the crane is single failure proof and the likelihood 
of a drop is no longer considered credible. If a portion of the L-3 
lifting devices malfunction or fail, the crane system is designed 
such that the load will move a limited distance downward prior to 
backup restraints becoming engaged. An increased minimum transport 
height (1.5 feet) is established to accommodate this design feature. 
[A single malfunction or failure of a portion of the crane will 
prevent the load from being dropped. This will allow additional 
restrictions such as impact limiters to be removed. The radiological 
consequences will not be increased.] The impact on the spent fuel 
contained in the cask has been analyzed under an assumed dropped 
cask event and has been determined to be within design basis limits. 
Heavy loads are restricted from being moved over the spent fuel 
pools in accordance with ANO technical specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The ANO Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) have previously analyzed 
the drop of a cask up to 100 tons. This was as a result of a 
potential spent fuel cask drop event. The cask load has been 
increased to 130 tons under the new single failure proof L-3 crane 
design for heavier casks being employed at ANO. This increased load 
could provide a more severe impact on safety related equipment that 
exists in areas below the load path if a load drop event were to 
occur. However, to ensure that no safety related equipment or 
control rooms are impacted, the construction of a single failure 
proof crane mitigates the potential for a more severe consequence to 
that already analyzed

[[Page 11158]]

in the ANO SARs, since a load drop event is not considered credible.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The L-3 crane has been upgraded to comply with the single 
failure proof requirements of NUREG-0554, Single Failure Proof 
Cranes for Nuclear Power Plants and Revision 3 of NRC approved 
Ederer Topical Report EDR-1 dated October 8, 1982. To comply with 
the requirements of the topical report the crane was modified to 
provide additional load carrying capability and additional safety 
features to prevent a cask drop event. The safety margins provided 
by the new crane design have either remained the same or increased 
to ensure adequate safety margin to prevent failure of the crane or 
any lifting devices associated with the lifting of a spent fuel 
cask.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue amendments until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendments before the expiration 
of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in 
the Federal Register a notice of 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, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By April 7, 2003, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject FOLs and any 
person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes 
to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should 
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714,\1\ which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, and available 
electronically 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 an 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by 
the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule 
on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated 
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an 
appropriate order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most recent version of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the 
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), 
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. For the complete, 
corrected text of 10 CFR 2.714(d), please see 67 FR 20885 published 
April 29, 2002.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of 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 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. Petitioner must provide 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 who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies 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, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If the amendments are issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the 
hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no

[[Page 11159]]

significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendments and make them 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 amendments.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's PDR, 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of 
continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government 
offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and 
requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission 
either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail 
to [email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail 
to United States Government offices, it is requested that copies be 
transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 
or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to 
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20005-3502, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 24, 2003, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, 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 [email protected].

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of February, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas W. Alexion,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-5352 Filed 3-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P