[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51093-51097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4711]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-461]


Amergen Energy Company, LLC.; 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. 
NPF-62, issued to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, for operation of the 
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS) located in DeWitt County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' to reflect the increased fuel storage capacity 
in the spent fuel pool and the addition of fuel storage capacity in the 
fuel cask storage pool. A No Significant Hazards Consideration was 
previously published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2004 (69 
FR 78051) regarding this amendment. However, the description of the use 
of the Fuel Building crane and the temporary crane has changed. 
Therefore, the No Significant Hazards Consideration has been revised.
    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

[[Page 51094]]

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.
    The proposed change involves revising CPS TS 4.3, ``Fuel 
Storage,'' to reflect the increased storage capacity of the spent 
fuel pool due to the installation of higher density storage racks 
and the addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask storage 
pool.
    The method of handling fuel is not significantly changed since 
the same equipment and procedures will be used. During spent fuel 
rack removal and installation, all work in the spent fuel pool and 
cask storage pool area will be controlled and performed in strict 
accordance with specific written guidance. Any movement of fuel 
assemblies required to be performed to support the modification 
(e.g., removal and installation of racks) will be performed in the 
same manner as during normal refueling operations. Shipping cask 
movements will not be performed during the modification period. 
There is no change to the methods or equipment to be used in moving 
fuel casks. Expanding the spent fuel storage capacity does not have 
a significant impact on the frequency of occurrence for any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, this change will not significantly 
increase the probability of occurrence of any event previously 
analyzed.
    The consequences of the dropped spent fuel assembly in the spent 
fuel pool have been evaluated for the proposed change. The results 
show that the postulated drop of a spent fuel assembly striking the 
top of the spent fuel storage racks will not distort the racks 
sufficiently to impair their functionality. The minimum 
subcriticality margin (i.e., neutron multiplication factor (keff) 
less than or equal to 0.95) will be maintained. The structural 
damage to the Fuel Building, spent fuel pool liner, and any fuel 
assembly resulting from a dropped fuel assembly striking the pool 
floor or another assembly located in the racks is primarily 
dependent on the mass of the failing object and drop height. Since 
these two parameters are not changed by the proposed modification, 
the postulated structural damage to these items remains unchanged. 
The radiological dose at the exclusion area boundary will not be 
increased since no changes are being made to in-core hold time or 
bumup as a result of the proposed amendment.
    The consequences of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling were 
evaluated and found to not involve a significant increase as a 
result of the proposed changes. The concern with this event is a 
reduction of spent fuel pool water inventory from bulk pool boiling 
resulting in uncovering fuel assemblies. This situation could lead 
to fuel failure and subsequent significant increase in offsite dose. 
Loss of spent fuel pool cooling at CPS is mitigated by ensuring that 
a sufficient time lapse exists between the loss of forced cooling 
and uncovering fuel. This period of time is compared against a 
reasonable period to reestablish cooling or supply an alternative 
water source. Evaluation of this event includes determination of the 
time to boil. This time period is much less than the onset of any 
significant increase in offsite dose, since once boiling begins it 
would have to continue unchecked until the pool surface was lowered 
to the point of exposing active fuel. The time to boil represents 
the onset of loss of pool water inventory and is commonly used as a 
gage for establishing the comparison of consequences before and 
after a reracking project. The heatup rate in the spent fuel pool is 
a nearly linear function of the fuel decay heat load. The fuel decay 
heat load will increase subsequent to the proposed changes because 
of the increase in the number of assemblies. The thermal hydraulic 
analysis determined that the minimum time to boil is more than three 
hours subsequent to complete loss of forced cooling and a minimum of 
24 hours between loss of forced cooling and a drop of water level to 
within 10 feet of the top of the racks. In the unlikely event that 
all pool cooling is lost, sufficient time will still be available 
subsequent to the proposed changes for the operators to provide 
alternate means of cooling before the water shielding above the top 
of the racks falls below 10 feet.
    The consequences of a design basis seismic event are not 
increased. The consequences of this event were evaluated on the 
basis of subsequent fuel damage or compromise of the fuel storage or 
building configurations leading to radiological or criticality 
concerns. The new racks have been analyzed in their new 
configuration and were found to be safe during seismic motion. Fuel 
has been determined to remain intact and the storage racks maintain 
the fuel and fixed poison configurations subsequent to a seismic 
event. The structural capability of the pool and liner will not be 
exceeded under the appropriate combinations of dead weight, thermal, 
and seismic loads. The Fuel Building structure will remain intact 
during a seismic event and will continue to adequately support and 
protect the spent fuel storage racks, storage array, and pool 
moderator/coolant.
    A fuel cask drop accident was previously evaluated as described 
in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 15.7.5. 
Administrative controls will be implemented to ensure that fuel will 
be removed from storage racks located within the cask storage pool 
prior to any fuel cask being moved in this area. The presence of any 
empty racks in this area will not adversely affect the previously 
evaluated cask drop scenarios, since any impacted empty racks will 
tend to absorb the kinetic energy of the dropped cask and thus 
reduce the impact load and corresponding damage. The thin walled 
rack cell material poses significantly less threat to puncturing the 
cask than impact to the floor of the pool area. Thus, the results of 
the previously evaluated cask drop accident remain unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    In summary, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an 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.
    The proposed change involves revising CPS TS 4 .3, ``Fuel 
Storage,'' to reflect the increased storage capacity of the spent 
fuel pool as a result of the installation of higher density storage 
racks and addition of fuel storage capacity in the fuel cask storage 
pool. Due to the proposed changes, an accidental drop of a rack 
module during construction activity in the pool was considered as 
the only event that might represent a new or different kind of 
accident.
    A construction accident of a rack dropping onto stored spent 
fuel or the pool floor liner is not a postulated event due to the 
defense-in-depth approach to be taken. A new temporary crane, hoist, 
and rack lifting rig will be introduced to remove the existing racks 
and install the new racks. The temporary crane will be used to lift 
the racks from the operating deck and then lower them into the spent 
fuel pool. The temporary crane will then also be used to position 
the racks in their final location in the pool. The Fuel Building 
crane will only be used as an alternative method to initially 
introduce racks into the pool. The temporary lift items have been 
designed to meet the requirements of NUREG-0612, ``Control of Heavy 
Loads at Nuclear Power Plants, Resolution of Generic Technical 
Activity A-6,'' Crane Manufacturer's Association of America (CMAA) 
Specification 70, ``Specifications for Top Running Bridge & 
Gantry Type Multiple Girder Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes,'' 
and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N14.6, 
``Standard for Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers 
Weighing 10000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More for Nuclear Materials.'' A 
rack drop event is considered to be a ``heavy load drop'' over the 
pools. Racks will not be allowed to be lifted or to travel over any 
racks containing new or spent fuel assemblies, thus a rack drop onto 
fuel is precluded. A rack drop to the pool liner is also precluded 
since all of the lifting components either provide redundancy in 
load path (i.e., meet the definition of NUREG-0612 as a single 
failure proof design) or are designed to meet a safety factor of ten 
(10). The analysis of a rack dropping to the liner has been 
performed and shown to be acceptable. A drop of a spent lei rack 
onto the spent fuel pod liner, while unlikely, would not result in 
an uncontrollable loss of spent fuel pool water or lead to a 
catastrophic failure of the reinforced concrete slab. As noted 
above, the temporary crane (or the Fuel Building crane as an 
alternative) will be used to lower racks into the pool and place 
racks within their range of accessibility and to remove racks from 
the spent fuel pool. The temporary crane will be used to lift racks 
from the pool floor and move the racks horizontally with a limited 
height above the pool floor. All

[[Page 51095]]

movements of heavy loads over the pool will comply with the 
applicable administrative controls and guidelines (i.e. plant 
procedures, NUREG-0612, etc.). A rack drop would not alter the 
storage configuration or moderator/coolant presence. Therefore, the 
rack drop does not represent a new or different kind of accident .
    The proposed change does not alter the operating requirements of 
the plant or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the 
design basis accidents. The proposed change does not affect any of 
the important parameters required to ensure safe fuel storage. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The function of the spent fuel pool and fuel cask storage pool 
is to store the fuel assemblies in a subcritical and coolable 
configuration through all environmental and abnormal loadings, such 
as an earthquake or fuel assembly drop. The new rack design must 
meet all applicable requirements for safe storage and be 
functionally compatible with the spent fuel pool and fuel cask 
storage pool. The mechanical, material, and structural designs of 
the new racks have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable 
provisions of the NRC Guidance entitled, ``OT Position for Review 
and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications,'' 
provided as an enclosure to Generic Letter 78-11. The rack materials 
used are compatible with the spent fuel assemblies and the spent 
fuel pool environment. The fixed neutron absorber (i.e., Metamic) 
has been demonstrated to be acceptable for dry and wet storage 
applications on a generic basis. In addition, the NRC has approved 
Metamic for use in both wet and dry storage applications. The design 
of the new racks preserves the proper mar in of safety during 
abnormal loads such as a dropped assembly and tensile loads from 
stuck assembly. It has been shown that such loads will not 
invalidate the mechanical design and material selection to safely 
store fuel in a coolable and subcritical configuration.
    The methodology used in the criticality analysis of the expanded 
spent fuel pool meets the appropriate NRC guidelines and the ANSI 
standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is maintained by 
having Q equal to or less than 0.95 under all normal storage, fuel 
handling, and accident conditions, including uncertainties.
    The criterion of having keff equal to or less than 0.95 during 
storage or fuel movement is the same as that used previously to 
establish criticality safety evaluation acceptance. Therefore, the 
accepted margin of safety remains the same.
    The thermal-hydraulic and cooling evaluation of the spent fuel 
pool demonstrated that the pool could be maintained below the 
specified thermal limits under the conditions of the maximum heat 
load and during all credible accident sequences and seismic events. 
The spent fuel pool temperature will not exceed 150[deg] F during 
the worst single failure of a cooling pump. The maximum local water 
temperature in the hot channel will remain below the boiling point. 
The fuel will not undergo any significant heat up after an 
accidental drop of a fuel assembly on top of the rack blocking the 
flow path. A loss of cooling to the pool will allow sufficient time 
(i.e., 24 hours) for the operators to intervene and line up 
alternate cooling paths and the means of inventory make-up before 
the water shielding above the top of the racks falls below 10 feet. 
The thermal limits specified for the evaluations performed to 
support the proposed change are the same as those that were used in 
the previous evaluations.

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 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, 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, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    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 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license 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 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 0-
1F21, 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

[[Page 51096]]

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 requester/
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.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed 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; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. 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 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 Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, 
Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60666, the attorney for the licensee.
    The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on 
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of 
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of 
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in 
controversy among the parties.''
    The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on 
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's 
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual 
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with 
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those 
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing 
after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors.'' Under those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke 
the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the presiding officer a 
written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, 
the request must be filed together with a request for hearing/petition 
to intervene, filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is 
determined a hearing will be held, the presiding officer must grant a 
timely request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an 
untimely request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by 
the requesting party for the failure to file on time and after 
providing the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely 
request. If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, 
any hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance 
with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit 
the time available for discovery and require that an oral argument be 
held to determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an 
adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests 
oral argument, and if all untimely requests for oral argument are 
denied, then the usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated August 18, 2004, as supplemented May 
13, June 14, and August 17, 2005, 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 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 at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August, 2005.


[[Page 51097]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4711 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P