[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19110-19125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6996]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 March 18, 2005, through March 31, 2005. The
last biweekly notice was published on March 29, 2005 (70 FR 15940).
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
[[Page 19111]]
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
DirectivesBranch, 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
01F21, 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:
[[Page 19112]]
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 email 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 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 PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for Clinton Power Station. The
proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPP and would
revise others by clarifying a number of items without changing the
purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report, by updating
terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and by
standardizing the wording in the EPP.
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 Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
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 are administrative in nature.
Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident
initiation. The deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will
not impact the design or operation of any plant system or component.
There will be no effect on the types or amount of any effluents
released from the plants.
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. These proposed changes are administrative in
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen
Corrective Action Program.
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: Gene Y. Suh.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania;
Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units
2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for each of the units listed
above. The proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPPs
and would revise others by clarifying a number of items without
changing the purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report,
by updating terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and
by standardizing the wording in the EPPs.
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 Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
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 are administrative in nature.
Environmental
[[Page 19113]]
monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident initiation. The
deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the
design or operation of any plant system or component. There will be
no effect on the types or amount of any effluents released from the
plants.
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. These proposed changes are administrative in
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen
Corrective Action Program.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
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: Darrell J. Roberts.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for Clinton Power Station. The
proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPP and would
revise others by clarifying a number of items without changing the
purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report, by updating
terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and by
standardizing the wording in the EPP.
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 Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
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 are administrative in nature.
Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident
initiation. The deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will
not impact the design or operation of any plant system or component.
There will be no effect on the types or amount of any effluents
released from the plants.
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. These proposed changes are administrative in
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen
Corrective Action Program.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
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: Richard J. Laufer.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to revise
Technical Specifications Section 3.7.A.3.a to reflect the capability
upgrade of one of the offsite power lines from 69 kV to 230 kV by the
owner of this line, Conective Energy Company. The offsite alternating
current (AC) power normally supplies the station auxiliaries through
the startup transformer. After the station is operating and supplying
electric power to the grid, the offsite power acts as a standby source
of power. The proposed change involves transmission lines external to
the station, and would involve no physical or procedural changes to
onsite equipment. There are no surveillance requirements associated
with the offsite power sources, and no change in this regard is
proposed.
The proposed amendment would also include a clarification change to
Section 3.7.A.2 to distinguish between the two current 230 kV lines (N-
line and O-line) from the new 230 kV S-line.
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 proposed change upgrades the existing 69 kV offsite power
supply line to a 230 kV supply line. An evaluation performed to
assess the effects of the upgrade determined that upgrading the 69
kV line to a 230 kV line does not degrade the reliability of the
transmission interconnection with the Oyster Creek plant and
therefore does not increase the probability of the occurrence of an
accident. The proposed change will provide an equivalent or better
level of reliability of the offsite power supply system. Since there
is no reduction in the reliability of the offsite power supply
system, there will be no increase in the potential for fuel failure
and there is no increase in the consequences of any accidents
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change upgrades the existing 69 kV offsite power
supply line to a 230 kV
[[Page 19114]]
supply line. An evaluation performed to assess the effects of the
upgrade determined that upgrading the 69 kV line to a 230 kV line
does not degrade the reliability of the transmission interconnection
with the Oyster Creek plant. The proposed change does not involve
the use or installation of new plant equipment. Installed plant
equipment is not operated in a new or different manner. No new or
different system interactions are created, and no new processes are
introduced.
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.
The proposed change upgrades the existing 69 kV offsite power
supply line to a 230 kV supply line. The active or passive failure
mechanisms that could adversely impact the consequences of an
accident are not affected by this proposed change. All analyzed
transient results remain well within the design values for
structures, systems and components.
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: Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LCC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile
Island Station, Unit 1, Dauphine County, Pennsylvania; Docket No. 50-
461, Clinton Power Station Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2004, as supplemented by
letter dated January 4, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete requirements from the Technical Specifications (TSs) to submit
monthly operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure
reports. The changes are consistent with Revision 1 of Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler,
TSTF-369, ``Removal of Monthly Operating and Occupational Radiation
Exposure Report.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register (69 FR 35067) on June 23, 2004, as
part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice
of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Federal Register on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its
application dated October 21, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated
January 4, 2005.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report
of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent
data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational
radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that
specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no
changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change
is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment
to be operated in a manner different from the present design.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion
of the amendment request, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested change does not involve a 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: Richard J. Laufer.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336, and 50-
423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The requested change will delete
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for annual Occupational
Radiation Exposure Reports (all Units), annual report regarding
challenges to pressurizer relief and safety valves (Unit Nos. 2 and 3),
and Monthly Operating Reports (Unit Nos. 2 and 3).
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on June 23, 2004
(69 FR 35067). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model
NSHC determination in its application dated December 21, 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:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates the TSs reporting requirements to
provide a monthly operating letter report of shutdown experience and
operating statistics if the equivalent data is submitted using an
industry electronic database. It also eliminates the TS reporting
requirement for an annual occupational radiation exposure report,
which provides information beyond that specified in NRC regulations.
The proposed change involves no changes to plant systems or accident
analyses. As such, the change is administrative in nature and does
not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of
accidents or transients. Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment
to be operated in a manner different from the present design.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 19115]]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the requested change does
not involve significance hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT
06385.
NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket
Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois; Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County
Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois; Docket Nos. 50-254
and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock
Island County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), non-radiological, of
the Facility Operating License (FOL) for each of the units listed
above. The proposed changes would retain certain elements of the EPPs
and would revise others by clarifying a number of items without
changing the purpose, by removing the requirement for an annual report,
by updating terminology, by deleting obsolete program information, and
by standardizing the wording in the EPPs.
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 Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) are
concerned with monitoring the effect that plant operations have on
the environment for the purpose of protecting the environment and
have no affect on any accident postulated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Accident probabilities or
consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental
monitoring and reporting required by the EPPs. The deletion of
portions of Appendix B of the FOL will not impact the design or
operation of any plant system or component. No environmental
protection requirements established by other Federal, State, or
local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment request.
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 are administrative in nature.
Environmental monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident
initiation. The deletion of portions of Appendix B of the FOL will
not impact the design or operation of any plant system or component.
There will be no effect on the types or amount of any effluents
released from the plants.
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. These proposed changes are administrative in
nature. Changes in the annual reporting requirements and other
administrative revisions in accordance with this submittal have no
impact on margin of safety. Environmental evaluations will still be
performed, when necessary, on changes to plant design or operations
to assess the effect on environmental protection. Review, analysis
and investigation of Unusual and Important Environmental Events will
still be performed in accordance with the Exelon and AmerGen
Corrective Action Program.
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: Gene Y. Suh.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, IL
Date of amendment request: December 9, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests
new actions for an inoperable battery charger and alternate battery
charger testing criteria for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.8.4 and 3.8.5. The proposed changes also includes the relocation of a
number of Surveillance Requirements (SR) in Technical Specification
(TS) Section 3.8.4 that perform preventative maintenance on the safety
related batteries to a licensee-controlled program. It is proposed that
TS Table 3.8.6-1, ``Battery Cell Parameter Requirements,'' be relocated
to a licensee-controlled program, and specific actions with associated
completion times for out-of-limits conditions for battery cell voltage,
electrolyte level, and electrolyte temperature be added to TS Section
3.8.6. In addition, specific SR are being proposed for verification of
these parameters.
A new program is being proposed for the maintenance and monitoring
of station batteries based on the recommendations of Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 450-1995, ``IEEE
Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of
Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary Applications.'' The items
proposed to be relocated will be contained within this new program.
The proposed changes will allow additional time for maintenance and
testing of the normal 250 volts direct current (VDC) and 125 VDC
divisional battery chargers. In addition, relocation of the
preventative maintenance SR and battery cell parameter requirements to
a licensee-controlled program will continue to provide an adequate
level of control of these requirements, assure the batteries are
maintained at current levels of performance, allow flexibility to
monitor and control these limits at values directly related to the
batteries' ability to perform their assumed function, and allow the TS
to focus on parameter value degradation that approach levels that may
impact battery operability.
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:
Criterion 1--The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications
(TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system. The
proposed changes add actions to specifically address battery charger
inoperability. The DC electrical power system, including the
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident
sequence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that
the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function
as described in the UFSAR.
[[Page 19116]]
Therefore, the mitigative functions supported by the DC electrical
power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the
analysis.
The relocation of preventative maintenance surveillances, and
certain operating limits and actions, to a newly-created licensee-
controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program will not
challenge the ability of the DC electrical power system to preform
its design function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance,
consistent with industry standards, will continue to be performed.
In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the scope of
10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of
maintenance at nuclear power plants,'' which will ensure the control
of maintenance activities associated with the DC electrical power
system.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration,
and operating procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of
previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing
these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The proposed changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC
electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident
sequence analyzed in the UFSAR. Rather, the DC electrical power
system is used to supply equipment used to mitigate an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated. The proposed changes will not adversely affect
operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a
change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated.
Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment
is ensured. The changes associated with the new battery maintenance
and monitoring program will ensure that the station batteries are
maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC
electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety
related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions.
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: Gene Y. Suh.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2004, as supplemented by
letter dated January 4, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete requirements from the Technical Specifications (TSs) to submit
monthly operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure
reports. The changes are consistent with Revision 1 of Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler,
TSTF-369, ``Removal of Monthly Operating and Occupational Radiation
Exposure Report.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register (69 FR 35067) on June 23, 2004, as
part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice
of availability of a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Federal Register on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 36067). The licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application
dated October 21, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated January 4,
2005.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC is presented below:
Criterion 1--Does the proposed change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed change eliminates the Technical Specifications
(TSs) reporting requirements to provide a monthly operating report
of shutdown experience and operating statistics if the equivalent
data is submitted using an industry electronic database. It also
eliminates the TS reporting requirement for an annual occupational
radiation exposure report, which provides information beyond that
specified in NRC regulations. The proposed change involves no
changes to plant systems or accident analyses. As such, the change
is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--Does the proposed change 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, add any new equipment, or require any existing equipment
to be operated in a manner different from the present design.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--Does the proposed change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
This is an administrative change to reporting requirements of
plant operating information and occupational radiation exposure
data, and has no effect on plant equipment, operating practices or
safety analyses assumptions. For these reasons, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion
of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a
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: Darrell J. Roberts.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements for Salem
Nuclear Generating Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, TS
4.5.3.2.b would be modified to remove the restriction of operating a
safety injection pump or charging pump for testing purposes only.
Additionally, the proposed change would allow testing of the pumps,
provided the pump being tested is in a recirculation flow path with the
manual discharge valve or disabled automatic valve(s) in flow paths to
the reactor coolant system (RCS) closed. The proposed change would
provide the licensee the flexibility to operate the safety injection
and charging pumps while the pumps are isolated from the RCS.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
[[Page 19117]]
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.
In Mode 4 with the RCS coolant temperature less than 312 [deg]F
or in Modes 5 and 6 when the head is on the reactor vessel, there is
a potential risk of a low temperature overpressurization condition.
Mass additions of coolant by the safety injection and charging pumps
could cause such an event to the extent that these pump flows exceed
the ability of a single overpressure protection relief valve to
protect the system. In order to eliminate this possibility,
provisions are made to allow a maximum of one pump to be in service
with the other pumps disabled except for testing with the pump
isolated from the RCS. Provisions are made to ensure that a pump
being tested cannot inject into the vessel. The proposed change
merely adds flexibility to safety injection pump operation while
continuing to assure isolation from the RCS. The proposed change
continues to offer an equivalent means of affording the required
protection against low temperature overpressurization.
Based upon the above, the proposed change will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously analyzed.
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 change permits a minor change in the operation of
the plant by adding flexibility to safety injection pump operation
while continuing to assure isolation from the RCS. The proposed
change continues to offer an equivalent means of affording the
required protection against low temperature overpressurization. The
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated in
the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report]. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. Specifically, no new
hardware is being added to the plant as part of the proposed change,
no existing equipment is being modified, and no significant changes
in operations are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
The proposed change will not alter any assumptions, initial
conditions, or results of any accident analyses. The proposed change
maintains the level of protection against a low temperature
overpressurization condition.
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2004.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the surveillance requirements to verify the acceptability of new
diesel fuel oil for use, prior to addition to the storage tanks, and to
stored fuel oil.
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 changes involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve the expansion of the test used to
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to
addition to storage tanks, to allow a water and sediment content
test to be performed. In addition, a limit is being added for the
amount of particulate allowed in stored fuel, and the specific
allowance to utilize the exceptions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3.
Allowing a water and sediment content test to be performed to
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil, including a limit for
particulate for the stored fuel oil, and adding the allowance of SR
3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3 will not affect nor degrade the ability of the
emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety
function.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the 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 involve the expansion of the test used to
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to
addition to the storage tanks, to allow a water and sediment content
test to be performed. In addition, a limit is being added for the
amount of particulate allowed in stored fuel, and the specific
allowance to utilize the exceptions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The changes
do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing
basis.
Therefore, the 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 proposed changes involve the expansion of the test used to
establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to
addition to storage tanks, to allow a water and sediment content
test to be performed. In addition, a limit is being added for the
amount of particulate allowed in stored fuel, and the specific
allowance to utilize the exceptions of SR 3.0.2 and SR 3.0.3.
The level of safety of facility operation is unaffected by the
proposed changes since there is no change in the intent of the TS
requirements of assuring fuel oil is of the appropriate quality for
emergency DG use. The response of the plant systems to accidents and
transients reported in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) is unaffected by this change. Therefore, accident analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected.
The proposed changes do not reduce a margin of safety since they
have no impact on any transient or safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the 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: Daniel F. Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW.,
[[Page 19118]]
Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC 20005.
NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
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 (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 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 PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by email to [email protected].
Consumers Energy Company, Docket No. 50-155, Big Rock Point Nuclear
Plant, Charlevoix County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: April 1, 2003, as supplemented
by letter dated July 1, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds a license
condition which approves the License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Big
Rock Point Nuclear Plant, and provides the criteria by which the
licensee may make changes to the LTP without prior NRC approval.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 126.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-6: The amendment adds a
condition to the Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 21, 2003 (68 FR
2800), and November 25, 2003 (68 FR 66133). The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
March 24, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: September 16, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.6.1 that allows a 5
percent stroke rather than a complete (100 percent) stroke of each
Turbine Bypass Valve (TBV), and extends the surveillance frequency from
92 days to 120 days. The complete stroke verification currently
required by SR 3.7.6.1 once after each entry into MODE 4 would be
retained and renumbered SR 3.7.6.2. The system functional test (current
SR 3.7.6.2) and the TBV response time test (current SR 3.7.6.3) were
renumbered as SR 3.7.6.3 and SR 3.7.6.4, respectively.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 165.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR
64985).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: February 10, 2005, as
supplemented March 23, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment extends the allowed
outage time (AOT) for the emergency diesel generator (EDG) load
sequencer (EGLS) from 6 to 12 hours.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 5 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 221.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2005 (70
FR 8641).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: September 29, 2003, as
supplemented by letters dated April 22, May 20, June 9, and July 29,
2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the
Technical Specification 3.7.15 spent fuel pool (SFP) storage criteria
based upon fuel type, fuel enrichment, burnup, cooling time and partial
credit for soluble boron in the SFP. The amendment also allows for the
safe storage of fuel assemblies with a nominal enrichment of Uranium-
235 up to 5.00 weight percent. In addition, this amendment decreases
the required soluble boron credit, that provides an acceptable margin
of subcriticality in the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and
2, spent fuel storage pools.
Date of issuance: March 17, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 227 and 207.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 14, 2004 (69
FR 55469).
The supplements dated April 22, May 20, June 9, and July 29, 2004,
provided additional information that clarified the
[[Page 19119]]
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 March 17, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: September 28, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminate the
technical specification requirements to submit monthly operating
reports and annual occupational radiation exposure reports.
Date of issuance: March 24, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 342, 344, & 343.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 23, 2004 (69
FR 68182).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 2, 2004, as supplemented on
December 8, 15, and 22, 2004, and January 5 and 28, February 11 and 22,
and March 14, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to fully adopt the alternative source
term (AST) methodology for design-basis accident dose consequence
evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67. Specifically, the
amendment revises the TS Definition regarding dose equivalent iodine
and TS Section 5.5.10, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).''
The AST methodology for the fuel-handling accident was previously
approved in Amendment No. 215, dated March 17, 2003.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 224.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR
53104).
The December 8, 15, and 22, 2004, and January 5 and 28, February 11
and 22, and March 14, 2005, supplements provided additional information
that clarified the application, 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 as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: June 3, 2004, as supplemented on
November 18 and December 15, 2004 (2), and February 3 and 11, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the operating
license and Technical Specifications (TSs) to authorize an increase in
the maximum steady-state reactor core power level from 3067.4 megawatt
thermal (MWt) to 3216 MWt. This represents a nominal increase of 4.85%
rated thermal power. The amendment also revises the TSs to relocate
certain cycle-specific parameters to the Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR) by adopting TS Task Force Traveler TSTF-339, ``Relocate
Technical Specification Parameters to the COLR.'' In addition, the
amendment revises several allowable values in TS Table 3.3.1-1,
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' and Table 3.3.2-1,
``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: March 24, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 225.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR
53105). The November 18 and December 15, 2004, and February 3 and 11,
2005, supplements provided additional information that clarified the
application, 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 as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of application for amendment: September 1, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements to submit monthly operating reports and
annual occupational radiation exposure reports.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 212.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR
64989).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
Date of application for amendment: April 14, 2004, as supplemented
on November 10, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Section 4.7.A.2.a, ``Primary Containment
Integrity,'' to allow a one-time interval extension of no more than 5
years for the Type A, Integrated Leakage Rate Test.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 213.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR
62473).
The November 10, 2004, supplement provided additional information
that clarified the application, 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 as
published in the Federal Register. The
[[Page 19120]]
Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of application for amendment: September 16, 2003 as
supplemented by letter dated March 15, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment relocated the
current definition of surveillance frequency to new Technical
Specification (TS) Sections 4.0.2 and 4.0.3, and revises the
requirements for a missed surveillance in TS Section 4.0.3. This change
allows a longer period of time to perform a missed surveillance. The
time is extended from the current limit of up to 24 hours or up to the
limit of the specified frequency, whichever is less; to up to 24 hours
or up to the limit of the specified frequency, whichever is greater. In
conjunction with the proposed change, this amendment added the
requirements for a TS Bases Control Program which is consistent with
Section 5.5 of NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General
Electric Plants, BWR [boiling-water reactor]/4''. In addition, the
current definition of surveillance frequency (definition ``Y'') has
been relocated to new TS Sections 4.0.2 and 4.0.3. The current
definition of surveillance interval (definition ``Z'') has been re-
worded and relocated to new TS Section 4.0.1 consistent with
Surveillance Requirement 3.0.1 of NUREG-1433. Appropriate TS Bases,
also consistent with NUREG-1433, have been adopted for the new
sections. An editorial change has been made to TS 6.7.C to have the
reference for the definition of surveillance frequency refer to the new
Section 4.0.2.
Date of Issuance: March 16, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 221.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 21, 2004 (69
FR 76491).
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of application for amendment: September 1, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by eliminating the requirements to submit monthly
operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure reports.
Date of Issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 222.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2004 (69 FR
60680).
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of application for amendment: July 31, 2003, as supplemented
on October 10, November 7 (2 letters), November 20, December 11 (2
letters), and December 30, 2003, and February 10, February 18, February
25, March 17, May 12, and July 20, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) and licensing basis to incorporate a full-scope
application of an alternative source term methodology in accordance
with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.67,
``Accident Source Term.''
Date of Issuance: March 29, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 223.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The Amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2003 (68
FR 66135). The supplements contained clarifying information only, and
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination or expand the scope of the initial Federal Register
notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: May 12, 2004, as completely superseded
by application dated July 8, 2004, as supplemented by letters dated
October 14, 2004, and January 19 and March 7, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
analytical methods referenced in Technical Specification (TS) 6.6.5 by
replacing the existing physics code package with a Westinghouse Nuclear
Physics code package and incorporating the methodologies that will
support the use of ZIRLO fuel cladding and zirconium diboride burnable
absorber coating on uranium dioxide fuel pellets. The amendment also
implements TS Task Force Traveler No. 363, to revise the way analytical
methods are listed in TS 6.6.5 by identifying the topical report
numbers and titles only, and relocating specific revisions, supplement
numbers, and approval dates to the core operating limits report. The
portion of the application requesting to delete the TS Index will
continue to be reviewed and will not be included in this amendment.
Therefore, the correlating Index page will be revised as necessary.
Date of issuance: March 23, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 257.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR
53106).
The supplements dated October 14, 2004, and January 19 and March 7,
2005, 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 March 23, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 8, 2004, as supplemented by letters
dated February 2, March 8, and March 28, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes the automatic
[[Page 19121]]
closure interlock (ACI) function and deletes the Technical
Specification surveillance requirement associated with the shutdown
cooling system ACI. The change also provides a higher pressure setpoint
for the open permissive interlock (OPI) and maintains continued
functionality of the OPI with a license condition.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 258.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-6: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR
53106).
The supplements dated February 2, March 8, and March 28, 2005,
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: March 30, 2005.
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: July 15, 2004, and supplemented by
letters dated August 19, September 1, September 14, October 13, and
October 19, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The change implements a full-scope
alternative source term (AST) for determining accident offsite doses
and accident doses to control room personnel.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to restart from refueling outage 13 in the spring of 2005 in
order to update the design assumption regarding in-leakage, resolve
concerns identified in Generic Letter 2003-01, and support the power
uprate implementation.
Amendment No.: 198.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Updated Final Safety Analyses Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2004 (69 FR
51488). The supplements dated August 19, September 1, September 14,
October 13, and October 19, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Date of application for amendments: April 30, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify requirements
in Technical Specifications (TS) to adopt the provisions of Industry/TS
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in Mode
Restraints.''
Date of issuance: March 18, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 171, 157.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR
62474).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: February 27, 2004, as
supplemented September 13, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments allowed for the
activation of the trip outputs of the previously installed oscillation
power range monitor portion of the power range neutron monitoring
system. Specifically, this change revised Technical Specifications
(TSs) Sections 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS)
Instrumentation,'' 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating,'' and their
associated TS Bases, and 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR).'' In addition, the change deleted the Interim Corrective Action
requirements from the Recirculation Loops Operating TSs.
Date of issuance: March 21, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 251 and 254.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 13, 2004 (69 FR
19570). The September 13, 2004, 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 proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: July 23, 2004, as supplemented
by letter dated December 8, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the BVPS-2
Technical Specifications (TSs) eliminating periodic response time
testing requirements on selected sensors and selected protection
channel components and permits the option of either measuring or
verifying the response times by means other than testing.
Date of issuance: March 24, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No: 147.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: Amendment revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR
53109).
The supplement dated December 8, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: November 22, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminates the
requirements
[[Page 19122]]
to submit monthly operating reports and occupational radiation exposure
reports.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 211.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2891).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of application for amendment: February 27, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated August 9, 2004, and January 7, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies license
condition 2.C.(2)(b) to remove the requirement to perform a full main
steam isolation valve closure test associated with extended power
uprate. The additional request in the application to modify licensee
condition 2.C.(2)(b) to eliminate the requirement to perform a main
generator load reject test is not included in this amendment and will
be addressed by separate correspondence.
Date of issuance: March 17, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 257.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April, 13 2004 (69 FR
19572).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 17, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Nuclear
Power Plant, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: May 25, 2004, as supplemented
February 10, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by adding the demand step counters to the TSs and
adding a note to allow for a soak time subsequent to substantial rod
motion for the rods that exceed their position limits before invoking
the TS requirements.
Date of issuance: March 17, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 181.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 6, 2004 (69 FR
40675).
The supplement dated February 10, 2005, 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. 0
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: September 8, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment deleted the
Technical Specifications associated with the hydrogen monitors.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: March 22, 2005, and shall be implemented within 120
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 234.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2894).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
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: November 1, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment eliminates the
requirements to submit monthly operating reports and annual
occupational radiation exposure reports.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-180; Unit 2-182.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2894).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: September 22, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specifications (TS) requirements to adopt the provisions of Industry/TS
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in Mode
Restraints.''
Date of issuance: March 18, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 219 and 195.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2895).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: March 4, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment revised the
SSES 1 and 2 Technical Specification Table 3.3.5.1-1 to clarify that
four low-pressure coolant injection pump discharge pressure-high
channels are required for each automatic depressurization system trip
function.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 220 and 196.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
[[Page 19123]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 27, 2004 (69 FR
22881).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2005.
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: September 8, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: These amendments delete the
Technical Specifications associated with hydrogen recombiners and
hydrogen monitors.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 238 and 219.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2902).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
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 21, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: These amendments eliminate the
requirements to submit monthly operating reports and annual
occupational radiation exposure reports.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 239 and 220.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2903).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: September 8, 2004.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments delete the
Technical Specifications associated with hydrogen monitors.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 239 and 238.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2902).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: December 21, 2004.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Technical Specifications by eliminating the requirements to submit
monthly operating reports and occupational radiation exposure reports.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2005.
Effective date: March 22, 2005.
Amendment Nos.: 240 and 239.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2903).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2005.
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 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.
[[Page 19124]]
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 (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 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 one 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
[[Page 19125]]
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).
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS),
Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 9, 2005.
Description of amendment request: This amendment revises TS 3/
4.7.6, ``Control Room Normal and Emergency Air Handling System,'' and
associated Bases, to provide an Action when the Control Room Normal and
Emergency Air Handling System ventilation boundary is inoperable and a
note that allows the ventilation boundary to be open, intermittently
under administrative controls.
Date of issuance: March 21, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 171.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public Notices were given in the Columbia
The State on March 16 and 17 and in the Newberry Observer on March 16
and 18. The notices 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 March 21,
2005.
Attorney for licensee: Thomas Eppink.
NRC Section Chief: John A. Nakoski.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-6996 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P