[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64998-65000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30969]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-390]


Tennessee Valley Authority; 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. 
NPF-90 issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the licensee) for 
operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, located in Rhea 
County, Tennessee.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Final Safety Analysis 
Report to reflect a change in the spent fuel pool (SFP) cooling 
analysis methodology. TVA proposes to increase the existing WBN SFP 
heat load limit from its current value of 32.6 MBTU/HR to 47.4 MBTU/HR. 
The proposed change would give TVA the capability to off-load the core 
during outages as early as 100 hours after shutdown. In addition, the 
change would compensate for the projected increase in SFP decay heat 
from tritium production activities.

[[Page 64999]]

    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 10 CFR 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:

    A. The proposed methodology change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system (SFPCCS) will see 
higher heat loading for the spent fuel as a result a 100[-]hour core 
offload as well as tritium producing burnable rod (TPBAR) 
irradiation. The analysis methodology change takes advantage of 
operating data as input into the SFP cooling analysis assumptions. 
Specifically, by taking credit for actual (lower) fouling of the 
SFPCCS heat exchangers and using actual component cooling system 
(CCS) temperatures, higher allowable heat loads can be safely placed 
within the SFP without exceeding existing design limitations. The 
increased quantity of heat being rejected to the CCS system is well 
within the system's design capability. The actual SFP cooling system 
is not being modified from what was previously evaluated and will 
continue to provide cooling as previously described. Existing 
maximum SFP temperatures will not be exceeded. Should loss of all 
cooling (loss of two trains) occur, ample time and sources for 
providing makeup water, are available, therefore there is no 
increased probability for SFP boil-off to uncover the stored spent 
fuel. Since the stored fuel will remain covered, there is no 
increase in radiological effects of such an event.
    Therefore, the proposed methodology change does not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    B. The proposed methodology change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The SFP cooling system will see higher heat loading for the 
spent fuel as a result a 100 hour core offload as well as TPBAR 
irradiation, the methodology change takes advantage of operating 
data as input into the SFP cooling analysis assumptions. The actual 
SFP cooling system is not being modified from what was previously 
evaluated and will continue to provide cooling as previously 
described. The current UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] 
recognizes that a complete loss of SFP cooling (loss of two trains) 
would ultimately result in a SFP boiling condition. However, the 
revised analysis has shown that even with higher allowable decay 
heat loads placed in the SFP, adequate sources for makeup exists to 
allow reasonable time (over three days) to mitigate such an event, 
without reducing the SFP water level to unacceptable levels (10 feet 
above fuel storage racks).
    Loss of one train of cooling remains within the piping design 
analysis basis and the pool liner structural analysis since the peak 
temperatures projected are the same.
    An error in the determination of the heat exchanger fouling 
factor would be detected by comparing trends from past 
determinations and through measured pool temperature.
    Therefore, the proposed methodology change does not create a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    C. The proposed methodology change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    This methodology change further refines assumptions made in the 
SFP cooling analysis based upon operating data. The SFP cooling 
system is not being modified and will continue to provide cooling as 
previously described. The current UFSAR recognizes that a complete 
loss of SFP cooling (loss of two trains) would ultimately result in 
a SFP boiling condition. However, the revised analysis has shown 
that even with higher allowable decay heat loads placed in the SFP, 
adequate sources for makeup exist to allow adequate time (over three 
days) to mitigate such an event, without reducing the SFP water 
level to unacceptable levels (10 feet above fuel storage racks). 
While the revised analysis has shown a decrease in the time to react 
to a complete loss of SFP cooling, the resulting time available to 
mitigate such an event is acceptable. Additionally, the analyses for 
loss of cooling events all considered steady state heat loads from 
the fuel. Since a loss of two trains must first be postulated, over 
three days exists to restore cooling, heat load decreases over the 
three days, and multiple sources of makeup (one qualified) exist, 
adequate assurance is provided that the proposed change will not 
involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety related to 
SFPCCS operation or storage of spent fuel.
    The higher heat loads rejected to the CCS system are well within 
its design basis allowable heat loads experienced in other operating 
modes, therefore the CCS system can safety remove the increased 
decay heat from the SFP.
    Therefore, this proposed methodology 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 the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
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, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By January 16, 2002, 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

[[Page 65000]]

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC web site (http://www.nrc.gov). If a request for a hearing or 
petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the 
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of 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 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. Petitioner must provide 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 who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies 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, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    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.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. A copy of the 
petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the 
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, ET 10H, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated April 20, 2001, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of December 2001.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Mark Padovan,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-30969 Filed 12-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P