[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51487-51494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18512]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 July 23, 2004, through August 5, 2004. The
last biweekly notice was published on August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46582).
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 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.
[[Page 51488]]
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-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 e-mail
to [email protected].
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to
implement an Alternate Source Term (AST) as permitted by section 50.67
of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for calculating
accident offsite dose and doses to control room personnel.
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
[[Page 51489]]
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 use of an alternative source term is recognized in the NRC
[Nuclear Regulatory Commission] regulation 10 CFR 50.67; guidance
for its implementation is provided in Regulatory Guide 1.183. The
AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and physical
characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material for use
as inputs to accident dose analyses. As such, the AST cannot affect
the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident. No
facility equipment, procedure, or process changes are required in
conjunction with implementing the AST that could increase the
likelihood of a previously analyzed accident. The proposed changes
in the source term and the methodology for the dose consequence
analyses generally follow the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.183. As
a result, there is no increase in the likelihood of existing event
initiators.
Regarding consequences, the results of accident dose analyses
using the AST are compared to TEDE [total effective dose equivalent]
acceptance criteria that account for the sum of deep dose equivalent
(for external exposure) and committed effective dose equivalent (for
internal exposure). Dose results were previously compared to
separate limits on whole body, thyroid, and skin doses as
appropriate for the particular accident analyzed. The results of the
revised dose consequences analyses demonstrate that the regulatory
acceptance criteria are met for each analyzed event. Implementing
the AST, however, involves no facility equipment, procedure, or
process changes that could affect the radioactive material actually
released during an event. Consequently, no conditions have been
created that could significantly increase the consequences of any of
the events being evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any of the events
being 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 AST involves quantities, isotopic composition, chemical and
physical characteristics, and release timing of radioactive material
for use as inputs to accident dose analyses. As such, the AST cannot
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. No
facility equipment, procedure, or process changes have been made in
conjunction with implementing the AST that could initiate or
substantially alter the progression of an accident.
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?
Response: No.
Implementing the AST is relevant only to calculated accident
dose consequences. The AST involves quantities, isotopic
composition, chemical and physical characteristics, and release
timing of radioactive material for use as inputs to accident dose
analyses. The results of the revised dose consequences analyses
demonstrate that the regulatory acceptance criteria are met for each
analyzed event. No facility equipment, procedure, or process changes
are required in conjunction with implementing the AST that could
increase the exposure of control room or offsite individuals to
radioactive material. The AST does not affect the transient behavior
of non-radiological parameters (e.g., RCS [reactor coolant system]
pressure, containment pressure) that are pertinent to margin of
safety.
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: N. S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston & Strawn
1400 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Robert A. Gramm.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: April 8, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Technical Specification
(TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.6 and SR 3.8.4.7, DC Sources-
Operating, to change the values of battery charger currents, replace
the specified battery charger voltage values with the phrase ``minimum
established float voltage,'' add a new allowance for the method of
verifying battery charger capacity, and remove a restriction on the
conduct of a modified performance discharge test.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) section, 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is
presented below:
1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
The DC electrical power system provides normal and emergency DC
electrical power for the standby emergency power sources, emergency
auxiliaries, and control and switching during all Modes of
operation. SR 3.8.4.6 verifies the design capacity of the battery
chargers. SR 3.8.4.7 demonstrates the design requirements (battery
duty cycle) of the DC electrical power system. The proposed
amendment corrects a discrepancy between the TS Bases and FSAR
[Final Safety Analysis Report] and better aligns the PBNP TS with
the standard TS, which will enhance plant safety. Other proposed
changes are bounded by different TS requirements or existing
analyses contained in the FSAR, meet the intent of the existing
tests, and do not result in relaxation of the underlying
requirements.
The proposed change does not involve any hardware changes, nor
does it affect the probability of any event initiators. There will
be no change to normal plant operating parameters, engineered safety
feature actuation setpoints, accident mitigation capabilities, or
accident analysis assumptions or inputs.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased as a result
of the proposed change.
2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of the proposed change. The revised surveillance requirements will
continue to assure equipment reliability such that plant safety is
maintained or will be enhanced.
Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as
designed. The changes do not result in any event previously deemed
incredible being made credible. The changes do not result in adverse
conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety
systems. Therefore, operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in
accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The DC electrical power system provides normal and emergency DC
electrical power for the standby emergency power sources, emergency
auxiliaries, and control and switching during all Modes of
operation. SR 3.8.4.6 verifies the design capacity of the battery
chargers. SR 3.8.4.7 demonstrates the design requirements (battery
duty cycle) of the DC electrical power system.
The proposed change to these SRs continues to assure that design
requirements of the DC electrical power system continue to be met.
There will be no change to the departure from nucleate boiling ratio
(DNBR) correlation limit, the design DNBR limits, or the safety
analysis DNBR limits.
[[Page 51490]]
There are no new or significant changes to the initial
conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences. The
proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the plant protective
boundaries, will not cause a release of fission products to the
public, nor will it degrade the performance of any other structures,
systems or components (SSCs) important to safety. Therefore, the
requested change will not result in a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President,
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street,
Hudson, WI 54016.
NRC Section Chief: L. Raghavan.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: June 23, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for verifying the
operability of the remaining operable emergency diesel generator (EDG)
when either unit's dedicated EDG or the shared EDG is inoperable.
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:
Dominion has reviewed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 as they
relate to the proposed change to the Surry Power Station, Units 1
and 2 Technical Specifications and has determined that a significant
hazards consideration does not exist. The basis for this
determination is provided as follows:
1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not impact the condition or performance
of any plant structure, system or component. The proposed change
clarifies the testing requirement for the operable EDG(s) to limit
testing to only the intended purpose of the requirement, which is to
confirm a common cause failure mechanism does not exist in the
opposite train's EDG(s). The proposed change does not affect the
initiators of analyzed events nor the assumed mitigation of accident
or transient events. Common cause failure testing of the remaining
operable EDG(s) will still occur unless the reason for the EDG
inoperability is demonstrably not due to a common cause failure
mechanism. Furthermore, elimination of unnecessary testing of the
operable EDG(s) will reduce component wear and thus promote EDG
reliability and consequentially safety equipment availability. As a
result, the proposed change to the Surry Technical Specifications
does not involve any increase in the probability or the consequences
of any accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety
previously evaluated since neither accident probabilities nor
consequences are being affected by this proposed change.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant or a change in the methods used to respond to plant
transients. No new or different equipment is being installed and no
installed equipment is being removed or operated in a different
manner. There is no alteration to the parameters within which the
plant is normally operated or in the setpoints which initiate
protective or mitigative actions. The EDGs will continue to perform
their required safety functions. Furthermore, common cause failure
testing will continue to occur if the EDG failure mechanism cannot
be eliminated as a common cause possibility. Consequently, no new
failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. Therefore, the
proposed change to the Surry Technical Specifications does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or
malfunction of equipment important to safety from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed TS change does not impact station operation or any
plant structure, system or component that is relied upon for
accident mitigation. Margin of safety is established through the
design of the plant structures, systems and components, the
parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment
of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to
respond to an event. Since station operations and EDG surveillance
requirements are not affected by the proposed change, the EDGs will
continue to be available to perform their required safety functions.
Furthermore, the change does not impact the condition or performance
of structures, systems or components relied upon for accident
mitigation or any safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the
proposed change to the Surry Technical Specifications does not
involve any 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: Ms. Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
NRC Section Chief: Stephanie M. Coffin, Acting.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2003, as supplemented on May
20, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification Section 5.5.6, ``Primary Containment Leakage
Rate Testing Program,'' to allow a one-time extension of the interval
between the Type A, integrated leakage rate tests, from 10 years to no
more than 15 years.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July
27, 2004 (69 FR 44696).
Expiration date of individual notice: September 27, 2004.
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
[[Page 51491]]
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].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: April 21, 2003, as supplemented
on September 11, 2003, March 31, 2004, and April 16, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications, Sections 3.7 and 4.7, ``Auxiliary Electrical Power,''
and added a new Section 6.8.5, ``Station Battery Monitoring and
Maintenance Program,'' to make them generally consistent with guidance
set forth in NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General
Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 2, and with the industry guidance
identified as Technical Specifications Task Force traveler 360,
Revision 1.
Date of Issuance: July 30, 2004.
Effective date: July 30, 2004 and shall be implemented within 60
days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 245.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
The September 11, 2003, March 31, 2004, and April 16, 2004, letters
provided clarifying information within the scope of the original
application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission's
related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated July 30, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: April 19, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed change revises
Technical Specification 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Filtration
(CREF) System,'' to provide specific conditions, required actions, and
completion times that address a degraded control room envelope pressure
boundary. The associated Bases were also revised.
Date of issuance: July 26, 2004.
Effective date: July 26, 2004, and shall be implemented within 30
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 188.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (69 FR
29764).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 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: May 7, 2004, as supplemented by letters
dated July 8 and 16, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment clarifies the actions
of Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.4.5.1, Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
Leakage; revises the surveillance requirements (SRs) of TS 3/4.4.5.2,
RCS Operational Leakage; and deletes duplication in TS 3/4.3.3.1,
Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation. Also, the amendment deletes the
containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitoring system from TS
3/4.4.5.1. The amendment is based on NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical
Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,'' Revision 2, dated April
30, 2001.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 197.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (69 FR
29765).
The July 8 and 16, 2004, supplemental letters 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: October 10, 2002, supplemented
by letters dated October 10, and November 21, 2003, and January 13,
July 8, and July 23, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Dresden,
Units 2 and 3, technical specifications (TS) to increase the required
number of operable main steam safety valves from eight to nine and add
surveillance requirements for the ninth valve.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 208/200.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: Published in the
Federal Register on December 10, 2002 (67 FR 75875).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 51492]]
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: March 3, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.0.5 by updating the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code references as the source of inservice testing requirements
for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves. The amendments
replace references to Section XI of the Code with references to the
ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (ASME
OM Code), and provides consistent use of terms between the TS and the
ASME OM Code by adding a biennial surveillance interval.
Date of issuance: July 22, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by February 21, 2005 for Unit 3, and by April 14, 2005 for Unit 4.
Amendment Nos: 225 and 220.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 30, 2004 (69 FR
16620).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant,
Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: September 18, 2003.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) Section 3.4.1, by relocating the primary coolant
system pressure, cold-leg temperature, and flow departure from nucleate
boiling limits to the core operating limits report. The amendment also
revises TS section 5.6.5 to reflect the changes to TS section 3.4.1.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 217.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 14, 2003 (68 FR
59218).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: December 1, 2003, and its supplement
dated February 9, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the following
technical specifications (TS): (1) Item 14 of Table 3-3, ``Minimum
Frequences for Checks, Calibrations and Testing of Miscellaneous
Instrumentation and Controls,'' regarding testing of the nuclear
detector well cooling annulus exit air temperature detectors, (2) Item
10a.2 of Table 3-5, ``Minimum Frequencies for Equipment Tests,''
correcting a typographical error in the title, (3) TS 3.17(iii),
``Steam Generator Tubes,'' (4) TS 5.5, ``Review and Audit,'' (5) TS
5.6, ``Reportable Event Action,'' (6) TSs 5.7.1.b, 5.7.1.c, and
5.7.1.d, ``Safety Limit Violation,'' (7) TS 5.9.1.a, ``Startup
Report,'' and (8) TS 5.9.4.c, ``Fire Protection Deficiency Report.''
These changes consist primarily of relocating material not required in
the TSs to other licensee-controlled documents and correcting a
typographical error.
Date of issuance: July 23, 2004.
Effective date: July 23, 2004, and shall be implemented within 120
days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 228.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 2, 2004 (69 FR
9863).
The February 9, 2004, supplemental letter 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 no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated July 23, 2004.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: December 23, 2002, as
supplemented August 14, 2003.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Hope
Creek licensing basis, as described in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report, to replace the current plant-specific reactor pressure
vessel material surveillance program with the Boiling Water Reactor
Vessel and Internals Project Integrated Surveillance Program as the
basis for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Appendix H
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 50, ``Reactor
Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements.''
Date of issuance: July 23, 2004.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 151.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: This amendment revised the
facility's License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 29, 2003 (68 FR
22752). The August 14, 2003, letter provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand the application beyond the scope
of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 23, 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, 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
[[Page 51493]]
Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used
local media 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 law or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
[[Page 51494]]
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).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-323, Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2, San Luis Obispo County, California
Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2004, and its
supplement dated July 30, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a one-time
change to the completion time of Required Action A.1 of Technical
Specification 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and Cooling Systems,'' to
increase the completion time for containment spray pump 2-2 from 72
hours to 14 days.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2004.
Effective date: July 30, 2004.
Amendment Nos.: 173.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-82: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, State consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
July 30, 2004.
Attorney for licensee: Richard F. Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Section Chief: Stephen Dembek.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-338, North Anna
Power Station, Unit 1, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 23, 2004.
Description of amendment request: This amendment allows a one-time
7-day completion time to repair a weld leak that was discovered on the
low-head safety injection (LHSI) suction pump piping. This change is
needed to prevent an unnecessary plant transient and unscheduled
shutdown of North Anna Unit 1.
Date of issuance: July 23, 2004.
Effective date: July 23, 2004, and is effective until the `A' train
of the Unit 1 LHSI system is returned to operable status or until July
28, 2004, at 1723 hours, whichever occurs first.
Amendment No.: 236.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-4: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
July 23, 2004.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
NRC Section Chief: Stephanie M. Coffin, Acting.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James E. Lyons,
Deputy Director, Division of Licensing Project Management Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-18512 Filed 8-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P