[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13355-13357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5409]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-285]


Omaha Public Power District; 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-40 issued to Omaha Public Power District (the licensee) for 
operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, located in 
Washington County, Nebraska.
    The proposed amendment would change the surveillance requirements 
for laboratory testing of the charcoal adsorbers for the control room, 
the spent fuel pool storage area and the safety injection pump rooms. 
In addition, the amendment would delete the laboratory testing 
requirements for the containment charcoal adsorbers. The changes comply 
with the guidance of Generic Letter (GL) 99-02, ``Laboratory Testing of 
Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal.''
    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:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Testing the control room, spent fuel pool storage area and 
safety injection pump rooms charcoal adsorbers in accordance with 
the requirements of ASTM D3803-1989 will not increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. As 
noted in GL 99-02, testing to the new standards will strengthen the 
assurance the charcoal adsorbers will perform their design function 
during a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). The ASTM D3803-1989 
testing methodology is superior to the method OPPD [Omaha Public 
Power District] presently uses.
    Removing credit for the containment charcoal adsorbers and 
replacing their function with the containment spray system will not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated. This change is being accomplished 
in accordance with SRP [Standard Review Plan] 6.5.2. The containment 
spray system is an ESF [engineered safety feature] system and its 
operability is assured by Technical Specifications 2.4 and 3.6. In 
addition, the LOCA radiological consequences analyses were revised 
to re-confirm that OPPD is in compliance with SRP 6.4. The revised 
analyses resulted in a post-LOCA control room thyroid dose of 32 
REM, which exceeds the SRP 6.4 limit of 30 REM. The SRP 6.4 dose 
limits are based on ICRP-2 dose methodology. The critical organ 
approach of ICRP-2 has been replaced by the ICRP-30 dose methodology 
that utilizes a weighted sum of doses to all irradiated organs and 
tissues. The applicable dose limits for analyses utilizing the ICRP-
20 methodology are 5 REM for stochastic effects, 50 REM for all 
organs and tissues (e.g., thyroid), and 15 REM for the lens of the 
eye. The ICRP-30 dose methodology has been approved and implemented 
by the NRC through the new 10 CFR Part 20 regulation. Therefore, the 
calculated doses presented above are acceptable and meet the intent 
of SRP 6.4.
    Finally, these changes will not affect non-credited functions of 
the containment charcoal adsorbers. The filters will be left in 
place, but not credited in the Loss of Coolant (LOCA) radiological 
consequences analyses. The filters will be tested in accordance with 
TS 3.6 (3) to verify they are not clogged by excessive amounts of 
foreign matter.
    In conclusion, based on the discussion above, these changes will 
not significantly increase 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.
    Testing the control room, spent fuel pool storage area and 
safety injection pump rooms charcoal adsorbers in accordance with 
the requirements of ASTM D3803-1989 will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated. Testing to the new standards will strengthen the 
assurance the

[[Page 13356]]

charcoal adsorbers will perform their design function during a Loss 
of Coolant Accident. The ASTM D3803-1989 testing protocol is 
superior to the method OPPD presently uses. Finally, testing these 
charcoal adsorbers in accordance with requirements of ASTM D3803-
1989 will bring OPPD in compliance with the requirements of Generic 
Letter 99-02.
    Removing credit for the containment charcoal adsorbers and 
replacing their function with the containment spray system will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated. This change is being accomplished 
in accordance with SRP 6.5.2. Using the containment spray system 
instead of the containment charcoal adsorbers is a different, but 
equally effective, approach to mitigating the consequences of a 
LOCA.
    This change will not result in any physical alterations to the 
containment spray system or the control room, spent fuel pool 
storage area, S.I. [safety injection] pump rooms or containment 
charcoal adsorbers. This change will not result in any physical 
alterations to any plant configuration, systems, or operational 
characteristics. There will be no changes in operating modes, or 
safety limits, or instrument limits. Therefore, these changes do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Testing the control room, spent fuel pool storage area and S.I. 
pump rooms charcoal adsorbers in accordance with the requirements of 
ASTM D3803-1989 will not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety. Testing to the new standards will strengthen the 
assurance the charcoal adsorbers will perform their design function 
during a LOCA. The ASTM D3803-1989 testing protocol is superior to 
the method OPPD presently uses. Finally, testing these charcoal 
adsorbers in accordance with requirements of ASTM D3803-1989 will 
bring OPPD in compliance with the requirements of Generic Letter 99-
02. Removing credit for the containment charcoal adsorbers and 
replacing their function with the containment spray system will not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    This change is being accomplished in accordance with SRP 6.5.2. 
The containment spray system is an ESF system and its operability is 
assured by Technical Specifications 2.4 and 3.6. In addition, the 
LOCA radiological consequences analyses were revised to re-confirm 
that OPPD is in compliance with SRP 6.4.
    The revised analyses resulted in a post-LOCA control room 
thyroid dose of 32 REM, which exceeds the SRP 6.4 limit of 30 REM. 
The SRP 6.4 dose limits are based on ICRP-2 dose methodology. The 
critical organ approach of ICRP-2 has been replaced by the ICRP-30 
dose methodology that utilizes a weighted sum of doses to all 
irradiated organs and tissues. The applicable dose limits for 
analyses utilizing the ICRP-30 methodology are 5 REM for stochastic 
effects, 50 REM for all organs and tissues (e.g., thyroid), and 15 
REM for the lens of the eye. The ICRP-30 dose methodology has been 
approved and implemented by the NRC through the new 10 CFR 20 
regulation. Therefore, the calculated doses presented above are 
acceptable and meet the intent of SRP 6.4.
    Finally, these changes will not affect non-credited functions of 
the containment charcoal adsorbers. The filters will be left in 
place, but not credited in the Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) 
radiological consequences analyses.
    In conclusion, these changes will not significantly reduce a 
margin of safety because: (1) Use of a superior test methodology 
will provide better assurance of the safety functionality of 
credited charcoal filters, and (2) the analysis for control room 
dose is now based on empirical in-leakage data.

    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 April 5, 2001, 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 2.714 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

[[Page 13357]]

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 James 
R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC 
20005-3502, 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 14, 2000, and supplements dated 
June 2, July 28, and December 1, 2000, and January 31, 2001, which are 
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 1st day of March 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate IV and Decomissioning 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-5409 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P