[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 123-126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31207]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-255]


Entergy Nuclear 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 (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-20 issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO, the licensee), 
for operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant located in Covert, 
Michigan.
    The proposed amendment would revise Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications (TS), as they apply to the spent fuel pool (SFP) storage 
requirements in TS section 3.7.16 and the criticality requirements for 
the Region I SFP and north tilt pit fuel storage racks, in TS section 
4.3.1.1.
    The proposed change, in accordance with Title 10 of Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.68, Criticality accident requirements, would 
establish the effective neutron multiplication factor (Keff) limits for 
Region I storage racks based on analyses to maintain Keff less than 1.0 
when flooded with unborated water, and less than, or equal to (<=) 0.95 
when flooded with water having a minimum boron concentration of 850 
parts per million (ppm) during normal operations. The proposed change 
was evaluated for both normal operation and accident conditions. This 
proposed change provides an analysis that does not credit boron in the 
Carborundum [supreg] poison plates and incorporates a conservative 
swelling model of the plates in the Region I storage racks.
    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 amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of an 
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool 
racks when considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool 
water for criticality control. Fuel assembly placement would 
continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures and 
would be in accordance with the TS fuel storage rack configuration 
limitations.
    There is no significant increase in the consequences of the 
accidental misloading of fuel assemblies into the spent fuel pool 
racks because the criticality analyses demonstrate that the pool 
would remain subcritical with margin following an accidental 
misloading if the pool contains an adequate boron concentration. The 
TS 3.7.15 limitation on minimum spent fuel pool boron concentration 
and plant procedures ensure that an adequate boron concentration 
will be maintained.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of a fuel 
assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool when considering the 
presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water for 
criticality control. The handling of fuel assemblies in the spent 
fuel is performed in borated water. The criticality analysis has 
showed the reactivity increase with a fuel assembly drop accident in 
both a vertical and horizontal orientation is bounded by the 
misloading accident. Therefore, the consequences of a fuel assembly 
drop accident in the spent fuel pool would not increase 
significantly due to the proposed change.
    The spent fuel pool TS boron concentration requirement in TS 
3.7.15 requires a minimum of 1720 ppm which bounds the analysis. 
Soluble boron has been maintained in the spent fuel pool water as 
required by TS and controlled by procedures. The present criticality 
safety analyses for Region II of the spent fuel pool credits the 
same soluble boron concentration of 850 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 
0.95 under normal conditions and 1350 ppm to maintain a Keff <= 0.95 
under accident scenarios as do the analyses for the proposed change 
for Region I. Crediting soluble boron in the Region I spent fuel 
pool criticality analysis would have no effect on normal pool 
operation and maintenance. Thus, there is no change to the 
probability or the consequences of the boron dilution event in the 
spent fuel pool.
    Since soluble boron is maintained in the spent fuel pool water, 
implementation of the proposed changes would have no effect on the 
normal pool operation and maintenance. Also, since soluble boron is 
present in the spent fuel pool a dilution event has always been a 
possibility. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from 
the spent fuel

[[Page 124]]

pool was evaluated as part of the analyses in support of this 
proposed amendment. The analyses use the same soluble boron 
concentrations as were used in previous analyses for Region II spent 
fuel storage racks. In the unlikely event that soluble boron in the 
spent fuel pool is completely diluted, the fuel in Region I of the 
spent fuel pool would remain subcritical by a design margin of at 
least 0.02 delta Keff, so the Keff of the fuel in Region I will 
remain below 1.0. Therefore, the limitations on boron concentration 
have not changed and would not result in a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    There is no increase in the probability or consequences of the 
loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool water, when 
considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for 
subcriticality control, since a high concentration of soluble boron 
is always maintained in the spent fuel pool.
    The criticality analyses documented in AREVA NP report ANP-
2779NP-001, ``Palisades SFP Region I Criticality Evaluation,'' show, 
at a 0.95% [percent] probability and a 95% confidence level (95/95) 
that Keff is less than the regulatory limit in 10 CFR 50.68 of 0.95 
under borated conditions, or a limit of 1.0 with unborated water. 
Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are 
not increased.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of any 
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.
    Spent fuel handling accidents have been analyzed in Sections 
14.11, ``Postulated Cask Drop Accidents,'' and 14.19, ``Fuel 
Handling Incident,'' of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 
Criticality accidents in the spent fuel pool have been analyzed in 
previous criticality evaluations, which are the bases for the 
present TS.
    The existing TS allow storage of fuel assemblies with a maximum 
planar average U-235 enrichment of 4.95 weight percent in the Region 
I fuel storage rack. The proposed specifications would restrict fuel 
enrichment to lower values in different areas of the Region I 
storage racks. The possibility of placing a fuel assembly with 
greater enrichment than allowed currently exists but is controlled 
by fuel manufacturer's procedures and plant handling procedures. 
Manufacturer's and plant procedu[r]al controls would remain in 
place. Lowering the allowed enrichments does not create a new or 
different kind of accident.
    ENO considered the effects of a mispositioned fuel assembly. The 
proposed loading restrictions include locations that are prohibited 
from containing any fuel. Administrative controls are in place to 
restrict fuel moves to those locations. These include procedures to 
develop the plans for fuel movement and operate the fuel handling 
equipment. These procedures include appropriate reviews and 
verifications to ensure design requirements are maintained. ENO is 
also proposing to add new limiting conditions for operation and 
surveillance requirements in TS 3.7.16 to provide additional 
assurance that the requirements are met.
    Furthermore, the existing TS contain limitations on the spent 
fuel pool boron concentration that conservatively bound the required 
boron concentration of the new criticality analyses. Currently, TS 
3.7.15 requires a minimum boron concentration of 1720 ppm. Since 
soluble boron is maintained in the spent fuel pool water, 
implementation of the proposed changes would have no effect on the 
normal pool operation and maintenance. Since soluble boron is 
present in the spent fuel pool, a dilution event has always been a 
possibility. The loss of substantial amounts of soluble boron from 
the spent fuel pool was evaluated as part of the analysis in support 
of Amendment 207. That analysis also demonstrated that due to the 
large volume of unborated water that would need to be added and 
displaced, and the long duration of the event, the condition would 
be detected and corrected promptly. The analyses that support the 
current request use the same soluble boron concentrations as were 
used in previous analyses for Region II spent fuel storage racks. In 
the unlikely event that soluble boron in the spent fuel pool is 
completely diluted, the fuel in Region I of the spent fuel pool 
would remain subcritical by a design margin of at least 0.02 delta 
Keff, so the Keff of the fuel in Region I would remain below 1.0.
    The combination of controls to prevent a mispositioned fuel 
assembly, ability to readily identify and correct a dilution event, 
and relatively high concentration of soluble boron supports a 
conclusion that a new or different kind of accident is not created.
    Under the proposed amendment, no changes are made to the fuel 
storage racks themselves, to any other systems, or to any plant 
structures. Therefore, the change will not result in any other 
change in the plant configuration or equipment design.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Detailed analysis with approved and benchmarked methods has 
shown with a 95% probability at a 95% confidence level, that the 
Keff, of the Region I fuel storage racks in the spent fuel pool, 
including biases, tolerances and uncertainties is less than 1.0 with 
unborated water, and less than or equal to 0.95 with 850 ppm of 
soluble boron credited. In addition, the effects of abnormal and 
accident conditions have been evaluated to demonstrate that under 
credible conditions the Keff will not exceed 0.95 with 1350 ppm 
soluble boron credited. The current TS requirement for minimum spent 
fuel pool boron concentration is 1720 ppm, which provides assurance 
that the spent fuel pool would remain subcritical.
    The current analysis basis for the Region II fuel storage racks 
is a maximum Keff of less than 1.0 when flooded with unborated 
water, and less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded with water having 
a boron concentration of 850 ppm. In addition, the Keff in accident 
or abnormal operating conditions is less than 0.95 with 1350 ppm of 
soluble boron. These values are not affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in the 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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, TWB-05-B01M, 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. 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.

[[Page 125]]

    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 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who 
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request via electronic submission through the NRC E-filing system 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 person(s) 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.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents 
over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic 
storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their 
filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures 
described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit 
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or

[[Page 126]]

their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital 
ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed 
so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing 
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The electronic filing Help Desk can be contacted 
by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at [email protected].
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a 
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all 
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail 
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/ehd_proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submissions.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment dated November 25, 2008, 
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 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 at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh Chawla,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E8-31207 Filed 12-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P