[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76481-76483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27846]


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

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 (Metamic<SUP>TM</SUP>) 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 
Metamic<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 defense-in-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

[[Page 76482]]

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 (k<INF>eff</INF>) 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.

[[Page 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b232e2a3922252c2f2428202e3f2b253928452c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5f171a1e0d1611181b101c141a0b1f110d1c71181009">[email protected]</span></a>; 
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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcf3fbfff1ddd5d0ffd9d2c8d9cefcd2cedf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c48b838789a5ada887a1aab0a1b684aab6a7eaa3abb2">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e6e7a6c5e706c7d30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f0f1b0d3f110d1c51181009">[email protected]</span></a>.

    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>