[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