[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51646-51648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-285]
Omaha Public Power Company; 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-40 issued to Omaha Public Power Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, located in
Washington County, Nebraska.
The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications to
allow the use of Sodium Tetraborate instead of Trisodium Phosphate.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant
that could affect system, component, or accident functions as a
result of replacing trisodium phosphate (TSP) with sodium
tetraborate (NaTB). Similarly, there are no changes to the design or
operation of the plant affecting system, component or accident
functions as a result of revising the volume of buffering agent
required during Operating Modes 1 and 2 with an amount dependent
upon hot zero power (HZP) critical boron concentration (CBC) to make
it consistent with the use of NaTB.
All systems and components function as designed and the
performance requirements have been evaluated and found to be
acceptable. NaTB will maintain pH [gteqt]7.0 in the recirculation
water following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This function is
maintained with the proposed change. Allowing the required volume of
NaTB to decrease over the operating cycle (as a result of
densification) as HZP CBC decreases still ensures that the pH of the
containment sump is [gteqt]7.0.
Further, replacing TSP with NaTB will not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Other than the Long Term Core Cooling evaluation that establishes
the Hot Leg Switchover (HLSO) time, no other safety analysis
methodology (LOCA or non-LOCA) specifically models the containment
sump buffering agent. As a result, the consequences of any accident
(other than determination of the HLSO time) are unaffected by the
proposed change to the containment sump buffering agent. The
analysis to determine the HLSO time specifically addressed the use
of NaTB to assure it would preclude boron precipitation in the core
and, therefore, preclude any increase in the consequences of a LOCA.
Analysis demonstrates that a NaTB buffering agent ensures the
post LOCA containment sump mixture will have a pH [gteqt]7.0.
Replacing TSP with NaTB, which achieves the same pH buffering
requirements, will not increase the probability of a LOCA.
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.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) previously required for
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the Technical Specifications
(TS). The proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-
related system or component and does not challenge the performance
or integrity of any safety related system. The proposed change has
evaluated the replacement buffering agent and no new accident
scenarios or single failures are introduced.
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.
Changing the containment sump buffering agent requirement from
TSP to NaTB and revising the required volume of NaTB to decrease (as
a result of densification) as HZP CBC decreases still ensures
containment sump pH [gteqt]7.0. NaTB will maintain pH [gteqt]7.0 in
the recirculation water following a LOCA. Therefore, this change
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluations were made that indicate that the margin for pH control
is not altered by the proposed changes. A NaTB volume that is
dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated with respect to
neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These
evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control,
and hence no reduction in the margin of safety related to post LOCA
conditions.
Although NaTB is less effective than TSP at raising the boric
acid solubility limit, implementation of a more conservative HLSO
time and higher recirculation flow requirements for the hot and cold
leg recirculation flows ensures that the margin of safety to
preclude boron precipitation, and ultimately assurance of core
cooling ability, is not compromised.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 51647]]
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
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 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
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.
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(c)(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
[[Page 51648]]
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 James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20006-3817, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated August 21, 2006, 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].
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of August 2006.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-14389 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P