[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 160 (Monday, August 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46521-46522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16313]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing (TAC Nos. J60622 and
J60626); Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Docket Nos. 50-30 and 50-185,
Sandusky, OH
Dates of amendment requests: May 18, 2005, May 12, 2006, February
9, 2007, and January 10, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The licensee (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)) has proposed to amend the
Facility Operating Licenses (TR-3 and R-93) of the two research
reactors located at Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Sandusky, Ohio. The
amendments to the licenses include revisions to the Technical
Specifications (TS), and incorporating a Final Status Survey Plan
(Revision 1). The same TS set applies equally to both licenses.
The Decommissioning Plan (DP) for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility,
approved by the Commission by issuance of license amendment dated March
20, 2002, will remained unchanged.
Proposed revisions to the TS include but are not limited to
administrative changes, revised facility descriptions, new definitions
and minor program changes. Specific proposed revisions include the
following:
Section 1 of the TS is revised to state that the TS apply to all
activities conducted under the provisions of the Licenses. It clarifies
that both reactors are both shutdown and dismantled, and there is no
fuel remaining at the facility. The facility was shutdown and ceased
operations in March 1973. The last shipment of irradiated fuel was made
on May 25, 1973, and all remaining fuel contaminated components were
shipped offsite by July 1973. Disposal of the Plum Brock reactor vessel
was completed in early 2005 and the core support components for the
Mock Up reactor were removed by the summer of 2003.
The `Definitions' in Section 2 of the TS are renumbered to comply
with ANSI/ANS-15.1 format, and the definitions that follow are numbered
as subparagraphs with the format 1.1.x. Some definitions are revised,
deleted, or redefined.
Section 2.0 of the TS are revised to identify that there are no
Safety Limits or Limiting Safety System Settings applicable to the
facility, since all reactor components and fuel have been removed.
Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the TS were revised to identify that the
Access Control Program was changed to more accurately reflect the
current site conditions.
Sections 3.2 and 4.2 of the TS relating to Alarm Response are
revised so that the Containment Vessel (CV) Door Open alarm was removed
from this section and incorporated into the specifications related to
`Containment'.
The specifications related to sump level alarms are revised to
provide quantitative criteria on when sump level alarms are required
rather than the subjective criteria of `kept dry'. The requirement for
the sump alarms to annunciate at the Plum Brook Station Communications
Center is also revised to require that the alarms annunciate at a
remote manned location which is typically the Plum Brook Station
Communications Center.
Sections 3.3 and 3.4 relating to Containment and Ventilation and
the associated Section 4 surveillance requirements are revised to
reflect that the fact the airborne activity must be controlled during
all decommissioning activities rather than only during the time period
that a `major portion of the source term is present'.
Sections 3.5 and 3.6 relating to Radiation and Effluent Monitoring
and the associated Section 4 surveillance requirements are revised to
reflect the current site conditions and to provide assurance that a
program is implemented that assures the worker exposure to radiological
hazards is maintained as low as reasonably achievable and in compliance
with 10 CFR Part 20 limits. In addition, they assure that effluents
from the facility are adequately monitored to protect the public and
environment from radiological hazards.
Sections 5.0 relating to Site Features are revised to conform to
the format suggested in ANSI/ANS-15.1 and to more accurately reflect
the current site conditions that have evolved as the decommissioning
program has progressed.
Sections 6.0 relating to Administrative Controls contain multiple
revisions. The requirement to perform an annual review is relocated to
section 6.9.2 to incorporate into the annual review performed at the
direction of the Executive Safety Board. The requirement to have Level
3 approval of temporary procedure changes is removed since such changes
are controlled through site established administrative procedures; and,
the responsibilities of the Decommissioning Safety Committee are more
clearly defined.
The last sentence in Section 6.5 of the TS is deleted.
Section 6.5 of the TS is revised to read, ``The Senior Project
Engineer will have direct authority over all activities that take place
at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF) and will be the primary
interface with on-site Contractors supporting the Decommissioning
project.''
The last sentence of Section 6.7 of the TS is revised to read,
``The authority to fulfill this responsibility and perform these
functions will be granted by Chairman of the NASA Safety, Health, and
Environmental Board.''
The second sentence in Section 6.9.2 of the TS is revised to read,
``Personnel performing these reviews shall be appropriately qualified
and experienced, and shall be members of, or appointed by the NASA
Safety, Health, and Environmental Board.''
Figure 1 on page 24 of the Technical Specifications is revised to
reflect the change in the name of the Executive Safety Board and to
depict the direct reporting relationship of the Health Physics and
Radiation Protection staff to the NASA Project Radiation Safety
Officer.
Licenses TR-3 and R-93 are also revised. The revision numbers
associated with issuance of this License Amendment are inserted in
place of
[[Page 46522]]
``Amendment 11'' and ``Amendment 7'' respectively. Paragraph 2.B.3 is
deleted and replaced with a new paragraph 2.B.4 to read, ``Pursuant to
the Act and Title 10, CFR, Chapter I, Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive,
possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source, or
special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical
form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with
radioactive apparatus or components.''
Paragraph 2.A of License TR-3 is revised by changing the last
sentence to read, ``The PBRF is described in the application for the
full-term license dated January 10, 1964 and amendments thereto.''
Paragraph 3 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``NASA is
authorized to decommission the facility in accordance with the
Decommissioning Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility approved by
the Commission by issuance of license amendment dated March 20, 2002,
as revised pursuant to paragraph 3.A.1 below, and to perform Final
Status Surveys in accordance with the Final Status Survey Plan for the
Plum Brook Reactor Facility* * *.''
Paragraph 3.A of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``This
amendment authorizes inclusion of the Decommissioning Plan for the Plum
Brook Reactor Facility and the Final Status Survey Plan for the Plum
Brook Reactor Facility and their supplements as supplements to the
Final Safety Analysis Report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5).''
Paragraph 3.A.1 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``The
licensee may make changes to the above plans and revisions without
prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval provided the proposed
changes do not:'' The change changes the ``word'' in the original to
``plans'', and would allow the licensee to make changes to the Final
Status Survey Plan without prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approval.
Paragraph 3.A.1.c of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is revised to read, ``*
* * increase the derived concentration guideline level and related
minimum detectable concentrations (for both scan and fixed measurement
methods);'' Paragraph 3.A.3 of Licenses TR-3 and R-93 is deleted.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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) Do the changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative, would not change plant
systems or accident analysis, and as such, would not affect
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the
plant or require existing equipment to be operated in a manner
different from the present design. Therefore, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident evaluated.
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment,
operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for the
proposed revisions 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 requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
The proposed change has no effect on existing plant equipment,
operating practices, or safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for the proposed
revisions 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 requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chad Glenn,
Project Manager, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-16313 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P