Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 76481

(The Americas), submitted to the 

Division of Research Programs at the 

November 1, 2004 deadline. 

8. Date: January 31, 2005. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Room: 315. 

Program: This meeting will review 

applications for Collaborative Research 

(Archaeology), submitted to the Division 

of Research Programs at the November 

1, 2004 deadline.

Daniel Schneider, 

Advisory Committee, Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–27882 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7536–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–275 AND 50–323] 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of amendments to 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–80 

and DPR–82 issued to Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (the licensee) for 

operation of the Diablo Canyon Power 

Plant (DCPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2 located 

in San Luis Obispo County, California. 

The proposed amendments would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

3.7.17 and TS 4.3 for Cycles 14–16 to 

allow installation and use of a 

temporary cask pit spent fuel storage 

rack (cask pit rack) for DCPP Unit Nos. 

1 and 2. The total spent fuel pool (SFP) 

storage capacity for each unit would be 

increased to 1478 fuel assemblies for 

Cycles 14–16. 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendments, 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. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed changes to temporarily 

increase the spent fuel storage capacity with 

a cask pit rack were evaluated for impact on 

the following previously evaluated events: 

1. A fuel handling accident (FHA). 

2. A heavy load drop into the cask pit. 

3. A loss of spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling. 

4. A stored fuel criticality event. 

5. A seismic event. 

The probability of a FHA is not 

significantly increased by the proposed 

changes, because the same equipment (e.g., 

the spent fuel handling crane) and 

procedures will be used to handle fuel 

assemblies and the frequency of fuel 

movement will be essentially the same, with 

or without a cask pit rack. The FHA 

radiological consequences are not 

significantly increased because the source 

term of a single fuel assembly will remain 

unchanged, and the cask pit rack will be 

installed at the same water depth as the 

existing SFP racks, with the same iodine 

decontamination factors assumed in the FHA 

analysis. The structural consequences of 

dropping a fuel assembly on a cask pit rack 

were evaluated and found to be acceptable. 

In accordance with NUREG–0612 [‘‘Control 

of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants’’], 

heavy load drops are not required to be 

postulated if a single failure-proof crane is 

used for heavy load movements. If drops are 

postulated, then the consequences must be 

acceptable. PG&E plans to install a single 

failure-proof crane in accordance with 

NUREG–0612, prior to heavy load 

movements associated with the cask pit rack 

and platform. In the event that a single 

failure-proof crane is not available, PG&E has 

also performed heavy load drop analyses for 

the cask pit rack and platform, which have 

shown acceptable results in accordance with 

NUREG–0612. Therefore, the probability and 

the consequences of a heavy load drop in the 

cask pit are not significantly increased. 

The probability of a loss of SFP cooling is 

unaffected and its consequences are not 

significantly increased with the cask pit rack 

installed. With the cask pit rack installed, 

loss of forced cooling results in a sufficient 

time-to-boil for the operator to recognize the 

condition and establish SFP makeup to 

compensate for water lost due to pool bulk 

boiling, and thereby maintain a sufficient 

water blanket over the stored spent fuel.

The probability and consequences of a 

stored fuel criticality event are not increased 

by the addition of a cask pit rack. The 

reactivity analysis for the new cask pit rack 

demonstrates that reactivity remains 

subcritical (below 0.95) for the worst-case 

fuel-mispositioning event with credit for 

soluble boron. 

The probability of a seismic event is 

unaffected and its consequences are not 

increased with the cask pit rack installed, 

because the structural analysis of the cask pit 

rack demonstrates that the fuel storage 

function of the rack is maintained during a 

seismic event. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. The proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The proposed change to add a cask pit rack 

does not alter the operating requirements of 

the plant or the equipment credited in the 

mitigation of design basis accidents, nor do 

the proposed changes affect any of the 

important parameters required to ensure the 

safe storage of spent fuel. A new rack 

material (MetamicTM) is introduced into the 

pool under these changes; but, based on 

testing results, there are no mechanisms that 

create a new or different kind of accident. 

The NRC has also approved the use of 

MetamicTM generically for SFPs. The same 

equipment (e.g., the spent fuel handling 

crane) and procedures will be used to handle 

fuel assemblies for the new cask pit rack as 

are used for existing spent fuel storage. The 

fuel storage configuration in the cask pit rack 

will be similar to the configuration in the 

existing SFP storage racks, and a fuel drop or 

mispositioning event in the new racks does 

not represent a new or different kind of 

accident from fuel handling and 

mispositioning events previously evaluated. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. The proposed change does not involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The effect of the proposed change on 

current margins of safety was evaluated for 

spent fuel storage functionality and 

criticality, spent fuel and SFP cooling, and 

SFP/cask pit structural integrity. The design 

of the new cask pit rack uses proven 

technology which preserves the proper safety 

margins for spent fuel storage to provide a 

coolable and subcritical geometry under both 

normal and abnormal/accident conditions. 

The rack design complies with 10 CFR 50 

Appendix A General Design Criterion (GDC) 

62, the O.T. Position for Review and 

Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage and 

Handling Applications, Regulatory Guide 

1.13, and ANSI/American Nuclear Society 

(ANS) 52.2. Handling of the cask pit rack and 

its platform in accordance with the defensein-depth approach of NUREG–0612 with 

temporary lift devices designed to ANSI 

N14.6 preserves the proper margin of safety 

to preclude a heavy load drop in the cask pit. 

The proposed SFP cooling system design 

basis is consistent with the previous 

licensing basis in FSAR [Final Safety 

Analysis Report], Section 9.1, for SFP 

temperature limits during normal and 

abnormal core offload conditions. The rack 

and SFP thermal-hydraulic analyses 

demonstrate that the proposed SFP cooling 

system design basis is met, and that no bulk 

boiling will occur in the cask pit rack or SFP 

with minimum cooling available. In the event 

76482 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 

of a loss of SFP cooling, there will be 

sufficient time for operators to identify the 

condition and initiate makeup flow or restore 

cooling to preserve fuel-cooling capability. 

The criticality analysis demonstrates that 

the effective neutron multiplication factor 

(keff) is less than 1.0 for normal conditions 

with unborated water and less than 0.95 with 

500 ppm of soluble boron, at a 95 percent 

probability with a 95 percent confidence 

level. Further, the reactivity effects of 

abnormal and accident conditions have been 

evaluated. To assure that under credible 

abnormal and accident conditions the 

reactivity will not exceed 0.95 at a 95 percent 

probability with a 95 percent confidence 

level, a soluble boron level of 800 ppm will 

be required to be maintained. 

The structural analyses for the cask pit rack 

and platform and adjacent structures show 

acceptable results during seismic motion. 

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 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 01F21, 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 

requestors/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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2004 / Notices 76483

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, 

HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; 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 

email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A 

copy of the request for hearing and 

petition for leave to intervene should 

also be sent to Richard F. Locke, Esq., 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. 

Box 7442, San Francisco, California 

94120, 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 

amendments dated November 3, 2004, 

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 pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day 

of December 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Girija Shukla, 

Project Manager, Section Project Directorate 

IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–27846 Filed 12–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316] 

Indiana Michigan Power Company; 

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 

and 2; Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of amendments for Facility 

Operating License Nos. DPR–58 and 

DPR–74, issued to Indiana Michigan 

Power Company (the licensee) for 

operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear 

Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, located in 

Berrien County, Michigan. Pursuant to 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 51.21 and 

51.32, the NRC is issuing this 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would be a full 

conversion from the current technical 

specifications (CTS) to a set of improved 

technical specifications (ITS) based on 

NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard Technical 

Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,’’

Revision 2, dated June 2001. The 

proposed action is in accordance with 

the licensee’s application dated April 6, 

2004, and the information provided to 

the NRC staff through the joint NRCIndiana Michigan Power Company CNP 

ITS Conversion Web page. To expedite 

its review of the application, the NRC 

staff issued its requests for additional 

information (RAIs) through the CNP ITS 

Conversion Web page and the licensee 

addressed the RAIs by providing 

responses on the Web page. Entry into 

the database is protected so that only 

the licensee and NRC reviewers can 

enter information into the database to 

add RAIs (NRC) or providing responses 

to the RAIs (licensee); however, the 

public can enter the database to read the 

questions asked and the responses 

provided. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.4 

regarding written communications for 

license amendment requests, and in 

order to have the database on the CNP, 

Units 1 and 2, dockets before the 

amendments would be issued, the 

licensee will submit a copy of the