[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32070-32080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12671]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from, May 14 through May 27, 2004. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 25, 2004 (69 FR 29761).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve 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. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
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. 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
[[Page 32071]]
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.
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 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The
filing of requests for a 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 within 60 days, 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 set forth 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/
requestor 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/requestor 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/requestor 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, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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 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, [email protected];
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 e-
[[Page 32072]]
mail to [email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for
the licensee.
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).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection 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/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Completion Time for Required Action A.1 of Technical
Specification 3.8.7, ``Inverters--Operating,'' from the current 24
hours for a Division 1 or 2 Nuclear System Protection System (NSPS)
inverter inoperable to 7 days.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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.
The proposed TS change revises the Completion Time for Required
Action A.1 associated with the Division 1 and 2 NSPS inverters.
Specifically, the proposed action allows continued unit operation,
for up to 7 days, with an inoperable Division 1 or 2 NSPS inverter.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the NSPS
inverters, the operational characteristics or function of the
inverters, the interfaces between the inverters and other plant
systems, or the reliability of the inverters. An inoperable NSPS
inverter is not considered as an initiator of any analyzed event. In
addition, Required Actions and the associated Completion Times are
not initiators of any previously evaluated accidents. Extending the
Completion Time for an inoperable NSPS inverter would not have a
significant impact on the frequency of occurrence for any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change will not result in changes
to the plant activities associated with NSPS inverter maintenance,
but rather will allow increased flexibility in the scheduling and
performance of preventive maintenance. Therefore, this change will
not significantly increase the probability of occurrence of any
event previously analyzed.
The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on
the initial conditions assumed in the analysis, the availability and
successful functioning of equipment assumed to operate in response
to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are
initiated. With an NSPS inverter inoperable, the affected instrument
bus is capable of being fed from its dedicated safety-related
alternate power supply, which is powered from a Class 1E 480 VAC bus
through a step-down transformer and an isolation transformer. In the
event of a Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP), the affected instrument bus
will experience a momentary loss of power until the associated
diesel generator (DG) re-energizes the 480 VAC bus. A LOOP with an
inoperable NSPS inverter (i.e., instrument bus being powered by its
alternate power supply) will result in a loss of power to the
associated instrument bus until the associate DG re-energizes the
Class 1E 480 VAC bus. All instruments supplied by the instrument bus
would be restored with no adverse impact to the unit because no
other instrument channels in the opposite train would be expected to
be inoperable or in a tripped condition during this time, with the
exception of routine surveillances. In the event of a failure to re-
energize the 480 VAC bus or of a transformer failure, the most
significant impact on the unit is the failure of one train of
Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) equipment to actuate. In this
condition, the redundant train of ESF equipment will automatically
actuate to mitigate the accident, and the affected unit would remain
within the bounds of the accident analyses. In addition, there would
be no adverse impact to the unit because no other instrument
channels in the opposite train would be expected to be inoperable or
in a tripped condition during this time, with the exception of
routine surveillances.
To fully evaluate the effect of the proposed NSPS inverter
Completion Time extension, probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)
methods and a deterministic analysis were utilized. The Incremental
Conditional Core Damage Probability (ICCDP) and Incremental
Conditional Large Early Release Probability (ICLERP) for each
inverter division are sufficiently below the regulatory guidelines
to be able to call the risk change small. Hence, the guidelines of
Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-
Informed Decision-Making: Technical Specifications,'' for the
increased inverter Completion Time have been met. Furthermore, the
evaluation of changes in Core Damage Frequency (CDF) and Large Early
Release Frequency (LERF) due to the expected increased inverter
unavailability, as mitigated by the compensating measures assumed in
the analysis, have been shown to meet the risk significance criteria
of Regulatory Guide 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic
Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes
to the Licensing Basis,'' with substantial margin. This calculation
supports the increase in the Division 1 and 2 inverter Completion
Times from a quantitative risk-informed perspective consistent with
the plant operational and maintenance practices. Therefore, the
request for extending the Completion Time will not significantly
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In summary, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an 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.
The proposed action does not involve physical alteration of the
station. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed
equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There
is no change being made to the parameters within which CPS is
operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigative
actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. The
use of the alternative Class 1E power source for the instrument bus
is consistent with the CPS plant design. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. This proposed action will
not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor
will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No
alteration in the procedures, which ensure the unit remains within
analyzed limits, is proposed, and no change is being made to
procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As such,
no new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a marge of safety?
Response: No.
Margins of safety are established in the design of components,
the configuration of components to meet certain performance
parameters, and in the establishment of setpoints to initiate alarms
or actions. There is no change in the design of the affected
systems, no alteration of the setpoints at which alarms or actions
are initiated, and no change in plant configuration from original
design. With one of the required instrument buses being powered from
the alternate class 1E power supply, there is no significant
reduction in the margin of safety. Testing of the DGs and associated
electrical distribution equipment provides confidence that the DGs
will start and provide power to the associated
[[Page 32073]]
equipment in the unlikely event of a LOOP during the extended 7-day
Completion Time.
Applicable regulatory requirements will continue to be met,
adequate defense-in-depth will be maintained, sufficient safety
margins will be maintained, and any increases in risk are small and
consistent with the NRC Safety Goal Policy Statement (Federal
Register, Vol. 51, p. 30028 (51 FR 30028), August 4, 1986, as
interpreted by NRC Regulatory Guides 1.174 and1.177). Furthermore,
increases in risk posed by potential combinations of equipment out
of service during the proposed NSPS inverter extended Completion
Time will be managed under a configuration risk management program
(CRMP) consistent with 10CFR50.65, ``Requirements for monitoring the
effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants.'', paragraph
(a)(4).
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.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60666.
NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
incorporate the oscillation power range monitor (OPRM) instrumentation
into the technical specifications (TS). The proposed changes would
revise: (1) TS 3.3.1.3, ``Oscillation Power Range Monitor (OPRM)
Instrumentation,'' to insert a new TS section for the OPRM
instrumentation, (2) TS 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating,'' to
delete the current thermal hydraulic instability administrative
requirements, and (3) TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR),'' to add the appropriate references for the OPRM trip setpoints
and methodology.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. This proposed change has no impact on any of the
existing neutron monitoring functions.
Activation of the OPRM scram function will replace the current
methods that require operators to insert an immediate manual reactor
scram in certain reactor operating regions where thermal hydraulic
instabilities could potentially occur. While these regions will
continue to be avoided during normal operation, certain transients,
such as a reduction in reactor recirculation flow, could place the
reactor in these regions. During these transient conditions, with
the OPRM instrumentation scram function activated, an immediate
manual scram will no longer be required. This may potentially cause
a marginal increase in the probability of occurrence of an
instability event. This potential increase in probability is
acceptable because the OPRM function will automatically detect the
instability condition and initiate a reactor scram before the
Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety Limit is reached.
Consequences of the potential instability event are reduced because
of the more reliable automatic detection and suppression of an
instability event, and the elimination of dependence on the manual
operation actions. Operators will continue to monitor for
indications of thermal hydraulic instability when the reactor is
operating in regions of potential instability as a backup to the
OPRM instrumentation. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. The proposed changes replace procedural actions
that were established to avoid operating conditions where reactor
instabilities might occur with an NRC approved automatic detect and
suppress function (i.e., OPRM).
Potential failure in the OPRM trip function could result in
either a failure to take the required mitigating action or an
unintended reactor scram. These are the same potential effects of
failure of the operator to take the correct appropriate action under
the current procedural actions. The effects of failures of the OPRM
equipment are limited to reduced or failed mitigation, but such
failure cannot cause an instability event or other type of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No. The OPRM trip function is being implemented to
automate the detection and subsequent suppression of an instability
event prior to exceeding the MCPR Safety Limit. The OPRM trip
provides a trip output of the same type as currently used for the
[average power range monitor] APRM. Its failure modes and types are
identical to those for the present APRM output. Since the MCPR
Safety Limit will not be exceeded as a result of an instability
event following implementation of the OPRM trip function, it is
concluded that the proposed change does not reduce the margin of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment deletes
requirements from the Technical Specifications to maintain hydrogen
recombiners and hydrogen and oxygen monitors. Licensees were generally
required to implement upgrades as described in NUREG-0737,
``Clarification of TMI [Three Mile Island] Action Plan Requirements,''
and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97, ``Instrumentation for Light-Water-
Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions
During and Following an Accident.'' Implementation of these upgrades
was an outcome of the lessons learned from the accident that occurred
at TMI, Unit 2. Requirements related to combustible gas control were
imposed by Order for many facilities and were added to or included in
the technical specifications (TS) for nuclear power reactors currently
licensed to operate. The revised 10 CFR 50.44, ``Standards for
combustible gas control system in light-water-cooled power reactors,''
eliminated the requirements for hydrogen recombiners and relaxed safety
classifications and licensee commitments to certain design and
qualification criteria for hydrogen and oxygen monitors.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no
significant hazards consideration determination for referencing in
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on September 25,
2003 (68 FR 55416). The
[[Page 32074]]
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in
its application dated March 4, 2004.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates
requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a
release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and
purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address
the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was
postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that
this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-
basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after
the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were
ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant
accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release,
hydrogen and oxygen monitors are no longer required to mitigate
design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not
meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10
CFR 50.2. RG 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key variables that
most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function for
design-basis accident events. The hydrogen and oxygen monitors no
longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the
rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category
3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the
hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the
course of beyond design-basis accidents. Also, as part of the
rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the Commission found that
Category 2, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization
for the oxygen monitors, because the monitors are required to verify
the status of the inert containment.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen and oxygen monitors
can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The
emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used
in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the
consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite
releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action
recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities.
Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3,
classification of the oxygen monitors as Category 2 and removal of
the hydrogen and oxygen monitors from TS will not prevent an
accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs, the
emergency plan (EP), the emergency operating procedures (EOP), and
site survey monitoring that support modification of emergency plan
protective action recommendations (PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner
requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor
requirements, including removal of these requirements from TS, does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and
relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements,
including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in
any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner
and hydrogen and oxygen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a
design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen
and oxygen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors,
nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on
the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident
confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and
relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements,
including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of
existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs
that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor
accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge
systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the
limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated
from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this
hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis
LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after
the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid
assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of
degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to
mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the
requirements established as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can
be adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen
monitors. Category 2 oxygen monitors are adequate to verify the
status of an inerted containment.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety. The intent of the requirements established
as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met
without reliance on safety-related oxygen monitors. Removal of
hydrogen and oxygen monitoring from TS will not result in a
significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and
availability.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: May 5, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for instrumentation setpoints,
allowable values, and calibration requirements based on updated
calculations and reviews, and add a definition of ``annual'' frequency
for use in the TS.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensees have
provided their analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed new DVR [degraded voltage relay] voltage and
minimum time delay Allowable Values are more restrictive than the
existing TS limits. The proposed new DVR maximum time delay is based
on the existing analytical limit, and is only increased to the
extent permitted by the methods endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.105. Annual channel calibrations are already performed, and adding
them to TS ensures from a regulatory perspective that the relay
drift is consistent with the setpoint calculations. The proposed new
LVR [loss of voltage relay] voltage upper Allowable Value is based
on a comprehensive EDG [emergency diesel generator] transient
analysis, and is only increased to the extent permitted by the
methods endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.105. The proposed new
LVR time delay allowable values are more restrictive than the
existing TS limits, and are within the existing TS range of
allowable values. Accident initial conditions, probability, and
assumptions remain as previously analyzed. The remaining portions of
the amendment request are administrative changes that will have no
effect on operations of the relays. The Degraded Voltage and Loss of
Voltage Relays are not
[[Page 32075]]
accident initiators; therefore, a malfunction of these relays will
have no significant effect on accident initiation frequency. The
proposed changes do not invalidate the assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident. Therefore,
the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed new DVR voltage and minimum time delay
Allowable Values are more restrictive than the existing TS limits.
The proposed new DVR maximum time delay is based on the existing
analytical limit, and is only increased to the extent permitted by
the methods endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.105. Annual channel
calibrations are already performed, and adding them to TS ensures
from a regulatory perspective that the relay drift is consistent
with the setpoint calculations. The proposed new LVR voltage upper
Allowable Value is based on a comprehensive EDG transient analysis,
and is only increased to the extent permitted by the methods
endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.105. The proposed new LVR time
delay allowable values are more restrictive than the existing TS
limits, and are within the existing TS range of allowable values.
Accident initial conditions and assumptions remain as previously
analyzed. The remaining portions of the amendment request are
administrative changes that will have no effect on operations of the
relays.
The proposed changes do not introduce any new or different
accident initiators. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
No. The proposed changes to the DVR Allowable Values will ensure
an adequate margin of safety is maintained between the lowest
allowable voltage setpoint and the highest per unit voltage required
by safety-related equipment, while at the same time establishing an
Allowable Value, not previously provided, that ensures a sufficient
margin of safety between the highest allowable voltage setpoint and
the lowest expected per unit source voltages.
The proposed changes to the DVR Allowable Values will ensure an
adequate margin of safety is maintained between the longest
allowable time delay and the longest time delay assumed by the
accident analyses, while at the same time establishing an Allowable
Value, not previously provided, that ensures a sufficient margin of
safety between the shortest allowable time delay and the longest
acceleration time for 4160 Volt continuously energized Safety
Features Actuation System motors.
The proposed new LVR voltage upper Allowable Value is based on a
comprehensive EDG transient analysis, and is only increased to the
extent permitted by the methods endorsed by Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.105. In addition, the new Allowable Value reflects improvements in
channel uncertainties that were made possible by upgrading the
relays to solid state units.
The proposed new LVR time delay allowable values are more
restrictive than the existing TS limits, and are within the existing
TS range of allowable values.
A new requirement to perform an annual channel calibration of
the Degraded Voltage and Loss of Voltage Relays is proposed. This
new requirement to demonstrate proper channel operations will not
adversely affect a margin of safety. The remaining changes are
administrative, and will have no effect on margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
Attorney for licensee: Mary E. O'Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Section Chief: Anthony J. Mendiola.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: May 21, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the following in the technical specifications (TSs): (1) adding
a new figure (Figure 2-3) to the table of contents that shows the
volume of Trisodium Phosphate (TSP) required over the operating cycle;
(2) Section 2.3(4), ``Emergency Core Cooling System--Trisodium
Phosphate (TSP),'' regarding volume and form of TSP; and (3) Section
3.6(2)d.(i), ``Safety Injection and Containment Cooling Systems
Tests,'' regarding the surveillance requirement for TSP volume. The
amendment also proposes modifications to the corresponding Basis of TS
2.3 and TS 3.6.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant
that could affect system, component, or accident functions as a
result of deleting the requirement for the ``dodecahydrate'' form of
TSP, or replacing the volume of active TSP required during Operating
Modes 1 and 2 with an amount dependent upon HZP [hot zero power] CBC
[critical boron concentration] as shown in Figure 2-3. All systems
and components function as designed and the performance requirements
have been evaluated and found to be acceptable. Hydrated TSP in the
range of 45-57% moisture content will maintain pH >= 7.0 in the
recirculation water following a LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident].
This function is maintained with the proposed change. Allowing the
required volume of active TSP to decrease over the operating cycle
as HZP CBC decreases will ensure that the pH of the containment sump
is >= 7.0 yet provides additional margin for EEQ [equipment
environmental qualification] concerns as containment sump pH is less
likely to exceed 7.5.
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.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All
systems, structures, and components previously required for
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the TS. The proposed change has
no adverse effects on any safety-related systems or component and
does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety
related system. The proposed change has evaluated the TSP
configuration such that no new accident scenarios or single failures
are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Deleting the requirement for the ``dodecahydrate'' form of TSP
and allowing the required volume of active TSP to decrease as HZP
CBC decreases still ensures that the pH of the containment sump is
>= 7.0. Hydrated TSP in the range of 45-57% moisture content will
maintain pH >= 7.0 in the recirculation water following a LOCA. This
change provides additional margin for EEQ concerns as containment
sump pH is less likely to exceed 7.5. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluations were made that indicate that the margin for pH control
is not altered by the proposed changes. A TSP volume that is
dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated with respect to
neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These
evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control,
and hence no reduction in the margin of safety related to post LOCA
conditions.
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
[[Page 32076]]
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.
Attorney for licensee: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the reactor pressure vessel pressure-temperature limits and
extend the validity of the limits to 32 effective full power years.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The revised curves are based on uprated fluence projections and
are applicable for the service period up to 32 effective full power
years (EFPY). There are no changes being made to the reactor coolant
system (RCS) pressure boundary or to RCS material, design or
construction standards. The proposed heatup and cooldown curves
define limits that continue to ensure the prevention of nonductile
failure of the RCS pressure boundary. The design-basis events that
were evaluated have not changed. The modification of the heatup and
cooldown curves does not alter any assumptions previously made in
the radiological consequence evaluations since the integrity of the
RCS pressure boundary is unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes
will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Revisions to the heatup and cooldown curves do not involve any
new components or plant procedures. The proposed changes do not
create any new single failure or cause any systems, structures, or
components to be operated beyond their design bases. Therefore, the
proposed license amendment does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed figures define the limits for ensuring prevention
of nonductile failure for the reactor coolant system based on the
methods described in 1989 ASME Code [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] Section XI Appendix G, 10
CFR 50 Appendix G, and ASME Code Cases N-640 and N-588. The effect
of the change is to permit plant operation within different
pressure-temperature limits, but still with adequate margin to
assure the integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure
boundary. 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.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Section Chief: James W. Clifford.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, 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 Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: December 15, 2003.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification 3.1.8, ``Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Vent and Drain
Valves,'' for the condition of having one or more SDV vent or drain
lines with one valve inoperable.
Date of issuance: May 17, 2004.
Effective date: May 17, 2004.
Amendment Nos.: 232 and 259.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 16, 2004 (69 FR
12364).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: August 19, 2003, supplements
dated October 23, 2003, and January 28, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to modify the requirements for the containment
pressure control system to eliminate a problem with circuit fluctuation
as a result of electronic noise.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2004.
[[Page 32077]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 214 and 208.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 18, 2003 (68
FR 54749).
The supplements dated October 23, 2003, and January 28, 2004,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on
September 18, 2003 (68 FR 54749).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: May 14, 2002, as supplemented by letters
dated June 27, 2002, July 9, 2003, and April 7 and May 12, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Appendix 3B and Sections 6.2.1.1.3.2.1,
``Reactor Water Cleanup Break'' and 6.2.1.2 ``Containment
Subcompartments'' to change the method of analysis for high energy line
breaks inside and outside of containment. The change will replace the
current THREED code for room pressure-temperature analyses with the
GOTHIC (Generation of Thermal-Hydraulic Information for Containments)
code.
Date of issuance: May 20, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 139.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
USAR Appendix 3B and Sections 6.2.1.1.3.2.1 and 6.2.1.2.2.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2002 (67 FR
45563). The June 27, 2002, July 9, 2003, and April 7 and May 12, 2004,
supplemental letters provided clarifying information that did not
expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice or the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2003, as supplemented by
letter dated April 22, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the heater
acceptance criteria contained in surveillance requirements 4.6.6.1d.5,
4.7.6.1d.3, and 4.7.7d.4, performed to verify that the heat dissipated
by the heaters is within a given band, for the shield building
ventilation, control room ventilation, and controlled ventilation area
systems, respectively. The changes increase the upper limit of the
acceptance criteria from rated capacity plus 5 percent to rated
capacity plus 10 percent and without any change for the lower limit of
the band of rated capacity minus 10 percent.
Date of issuance: May 24, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 194.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 14, 2003 (68 FR
59217). The April 22, 2004, supplemental letter provided clarifying
information that did not change the scope of the original Federal
Register notice or the original no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 24, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2),
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: January 28, 2004, as
supplemented May 3, 2004
Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminated the
requirements in BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Technical Specifications (TSs)
associated with hydrogen recombiners and relocate the requirements for
hydrogen monitors to the Licensing Requirements Manuals.
Date of issuance: May 19, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 142.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: The amendments
revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 16, 2004 (69 FR
12370). The supplement dated May 3, 2004, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: July 14, 2003, as supplemented
November 20, 2003, March 25, 2004, and April 27, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows a one-time
increase in the completion time for restoring an inoperable nuclear
services seawater system train to operable status.
Date of issuance: May 18, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 212.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2003 (68 FR
42644). The November 20, 2003, March 25, 2004, and April 27, 2004,
supplements contained clarifying information only and did not change
the initial no significant hazards consideration determination or
expand the scope of the initial application. The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
May 18, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: September 26, 2003, as
supplemented January 7, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify Technical
Specifications (TS) requirements to adopt the provisions of Industry/TS
[[Page 32078]]
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in Mode
Restraints.''
Date of issuance: May 12, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-169; Unit 2-170.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 9, 2003 (68 FR
68671). The supplemental letter dated January 7, 2004, provided
clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original
Federal Register notice or the original no significant hazards
consideration determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendment: July 31, 2002 (superseded
November 24, 1999, application) and its supplements dated August 15 and
December 23, 2003.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
technical specifications to relocate the pressure-temperature limits
and low temperature overpressure protection system limit setpoints into
a plant-specific pressure temperature limits report that will be
administratively controlled by the technical specifications.
Date of issuance: May 13, 2004.
Effective date: May 13, 2004, and shall be implemented within 30
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1-170; Unit 2-171.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 17, 2002 (67
FR 58648). The supplemental letters dated August 15 and December 23,
2003, provided additional clarifying information, did not expand the
scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the
NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 13, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments: February 2, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification 3.1.8, ``Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) Vent and
Drain Valves,'' for the condition of having one or more SDV vent or
drain lines with one valve inoperable.
Date of issuance: May 25, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 240 and 183.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 16, 2004 (69 FR
12372). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: March 23, 2004, as supplemented
April 30, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments allow both trains of
control room air-conditioning system (CRACS) to be inoperable for up to
7 days provided control room temperatures are verified every 4 hours to
be less than or equal to 90 degrees Fahrenheit. If this temperature
limit cannot be maintained or both CRACS trains are inoperable for more
than seven days, the requirements of Technical Specification Section
3.0.3 must be implemented.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 292 and 282.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 14, 2004 (69 FR
19880). The April 30, 2004, letter provided clarifying information that
did not expand the scope of the original application or change the
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 21, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: December 13, 2002, as
supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2003, December 17, 2003, February
12, 2004, and March 9, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: These amendments revise the
completion time of Required Action A.1 of Technical Specification
3.8.7, ``Inverters--Operating,'' from 24 hours to 7 days for an
inoperable instrument bus inverter.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 235 and 217.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2003 (68 FR
18289). The May 8, 2003, December 17, 2003, February 12, 2004, and
March 9, 2004, supplementary letters contained clarifying information
only and did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand the scope of the initial
application. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I,
[[Page 32079]]
which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Registermedia to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room, 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/adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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 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 flaw or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment
[[Page 32080]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within on of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
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, [email protected];
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 e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer or 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).
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: May 7, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment restores the licensed
thermal power from 1524 megawatts thermal (MWt), as approved in
Amendment No. 224, to the previous value of 1500 MWt.
Date of issuance: May 14, 2004.
Effective date: May 14, 2004.
Amendment No.: 227.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Operating License and the Technical Specifications. Public
comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC): Yes. Omaha-World Herald. The notice provided an opportunity to
submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No
comments have been received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, State consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated May 14, 2004.
Attorney for licensee: James R. Curtiss, Esq. Winston & Strawn,
1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of May, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-12671 Filed 6-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P