[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51378-51388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16979]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 August 5, 2005, to August 18, 2005. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 16, 2005 (70 FR 48201).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene
is discussed below.
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
[[Page 51379]]
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 basis for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the 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].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would modify
the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 reactor coolant system (RCS)
heatup and cooldown limits Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.9.1,
``Reactor Coolant System''. The associated TS bases will be updated to
address the proposed changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a result of the new analysis of the RCS
P-T [pressure-temperature] limits and associated heatup/cooldown
rates. These changes will support plant operation to 54 EFPY
[effective full-power years] and provide flexibility during plant
heatup and cooldown, especially during equipment manipulations such
as securing RCPs [reactor coolant pumps], swapping SDC [shutdown
cooling] heat exchangers, and initiating SDC.
The hydrostatic and leak test limit will now be administratively
controlled by the heatup limit. Administratively limiting
hydrostatic and leak tests to the heatup limit provides additional
margin to the Appendix G requirements. Table 3.4-2 has been modified
to remove the Inservice Hydrostatic and Leak Testing item and to add
a note indicating heatup limitations also apply to hydrostatic and
leak test conditions. The requirement to remain isothermal (rate ``
5 [deg]F/hour) for 1 hour prior [to] and during hydrostatic and leak
test [s] above the heatup curve is no longer needed as operation
above the heatup curve is no longer allowed.
The proposed changes to the RCS P-T limits and rates of
temperature change are based on the new analysis. This analysis uses
standard approved methods that ensure the margins of safety required
by 10 CFR 50, Appendix G are maintained. The other changes discussed
are more restrictive enhancements to technical specification
requirements. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not alter the plant configuration (no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any
new or unusual operator actions. They do not alter the way any
structure, system, or component functions. The increased heatup and
cooldown rates are bounded by the existing accident analysis. The
proposed changes do not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore,
the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
[[Page 51380]]
Response: No.
The proposed changes will modify the RCS P-T limits, and the RCS
heatup and cooldown rate limits. The proposed changes are being made
as a result of the new P-T and LTOP [low-temperature overpressure
protection] analyses performed. The new P-T curves and heatup and
cooldown rates are developed in accordance with the requirements and
methods described in 10 CFR 50 Appendix G and are consistent with
the criteria contained in the Standard Review Plan Section 5.3.2.
This will ensure the integrity of the reactor vessel is maintained
during all aspects of plant operation. Therefore, there is no
significant effect on the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated and no significant impact on offsite
doses associated with previously evaluated accidents. This license
amendment request does not result in a reduction of the margin of
safety as defined in the bases for the technical specifications
addressed by the proposed changes.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT
06385.
NRC Section Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: May 24, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification allowances to bypass the rod worth
minimizer consistent with previously-approved standards.
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 special operation allowances do not
involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect basic
plant operation. The relevant design basis accident is the control
rod drop accident (CRDA), which involves multiple failures to
initiate the event. Control rod decoupling and remaining stuck full-
in while its drive mechanism is withdrawn are required initiators.
The proposed special operations have no adverse impact on control
rod coupling or control rod performance. As such, there is no
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The CRDA analysis consequences and related initial conditions
remain unchanged when invoking the proposed special operation
allowance. The control rod withdrawal sequence is assumed to limit
individual control rod worths as another initial condition for the
CRDA. However, consistent with existing requirements for control rod
withdrawal operations, all control rod withdrawal sequences are
analyzed to meet this criterion and are implemented under the
control of the rod worth minimizer or by independent verification by
a second licensed operator or other qualified member of the
technical staff. The consequences of analyzed events are therefore
not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the 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 any physical
alteration of plant equipment and does not change the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions. 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?
Response: No. The proposed special operation allowances do not
involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect basic
plant operation. The relevant design basis accident is the control
rod drop accident (CRDA), which involves multiple failures to
initiate the event. Additionally, CRDA analysis consequences and
related initial conditions remain unchanged when invoking the
proposed special operation allowance. These changes do not negate
any existing requirement, and do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being
made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed change. 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: J.M. Fulton, Esquire, Assistant General
Counsel, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600 Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth,
Massachusetts, 02360-5599.
NRC Section Chief: Darrell Roberts.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: May 24, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) applicability requirements related
to primary containment oxygen concentration and drywell-to-suppression
chamber differential pressure limits.
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 applicability and associated default
actions being revised do not involve the modification of any plant
equipment or affect basic plant operation. Additionally, the
associated limitations are not assumed to be an initiator of any
analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The limits imposed by the associated specifications remain
unchanged. The consequences of analyzed events are therefore not
affected. Brief periods where the requirements for maintaining these
limits are relaxed are currently considered in the TS and associated
licensing basis. The proposed change clarifies and modifies the
definition of these periods, however, any changes are not considered
significant and are supported by remaining [definitions] consistent
with the recommended allowances of NUREG-1433, Rev. 3, ``Standard
Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR [boiling-
water reactor]/4.'' Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the 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 any physical
alteration of plant equipment and does not change the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with
[[Page 51381]]
current safety analysis assumptions. 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?
Response: No. The proposed applicability and associated default
actions being revised do not involve the modification of any plant
equipment or affect basic plant operation. Additionally, the
associated limitations remain unchanged. These changes do not negate
any existing requirement, and do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being
made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed change. The revised plant conditions reflecting the
applicability and the duration allowed to restore limits are not
credited in any design basis event. These changes do not reflect any
significant adverse impact to the overall risk of operating during
brief periods without the required primary containment oxygen
concentration since the total time for any occurrence is only
marginally extended and reflects times recommended by NUREG-1433.
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: J.M. Fulton, Esquire, Assistant General
Counsel, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, 600 Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth,
Massachusetts, 02360-5599.
NRC Section Chief: Darrell Roberts.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: June 27, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises
the Facilities Operating License to change technical specification (TS)
3.6.1.3, Required Actions A.1 and B.1, to add closed relief valves as
acceptable isolation devices provided that the relief setpoint is
greater than 1.5 times containment design pressure.
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.
Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs) are accident
mitigating features designed to limit releases from the containment
following an accident. The Technical Specifications (TS) specify
actions to be taken to preserve the containment isolation function
if a PCIV is inoperable. These actions include isolating the
penetration flow path by specific methods. The proposed TS change
adds closed relief valves with acceptable relief setpoints as
another method to isolate the penetration flowpath. The use of
relief valves with relief setpoints greater than 1.5 times the
containment design pressure meets the Standard Review Plan options
for acceptable isolation devices. This relief setpoint provides [a]
sufficient margin to minimize the potential for premature opening
due to containment post-accident pressures. The proposed change does
not affect any initiators to 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 does not introduce any new modes of plant
operation or adversely affect the design function or operation of
safety features. The proposed TS change allows use of existing plant
equipment as compensatory measures to maintain the containment
isolation design intent when the normal isolation features are
inoperable. Since relief valves used for this purpose will not be
disabled by blind flanges, the system piping overpressure protection
design feature will also be preserved.
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 safety margin associated with this change is that associated
with preserving the containment integrity. NUREG-0800, the Standard
Review Plan, recognizes that relief valves with relief setpoints
greater than 1.5 times containment design pressure are acceptable as
containment isolation devices. Closed relief valves with relief
setpoints of this margin provide an isolation alternative that is
less susceptible to a single failure (i.e., inadvertent opening) yet
still preserves the overpressure protection that the component was
intended to provide.
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: Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and
Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Section Chief: David Terao.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 15, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.2.2 ``Feedwater System and Main
Turbine High Water Level Trip Instrumentation,'' to reflect a design
change to the instrumentation logic.
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?
The proposed change revises TS 3.3.2.2 to reflect a design
change to the instrumentation logic that trips the three feedwater
pumps and main turbine. The design change will add a redundant high
reactor water level trip channel to both trip systems. The Feedwater
System and main turbine high water level trip is credited in the
QCNPS [Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station] accident analysis to
function during an increase in feedwater flow transient.
Specifically, the instrumentation and associated trip limits the
reactor water level increase resulting from a feedwater controller
failure during maximum flow demand, thus preventing a nuclear fuel
minimum critical power ratio violation associated with increased
subcooling and resultant pressure transient. Additionally, this trip
function prevents excessive water inventory from entering the main
steam system and damaging steam-handling equipment.
TS requirements that govern operability or routine testing of
plant instruments are not assumed to be initiators of any analyzed
event because these instruments are intended to detect, prevent, or
mitigate accidents. The Feedwater System and main turbine trip
instrumentation serves to mitigate transients that result in
increased reactor water level. The trip instrumentation associated
with the proposed changes and design change are independent from the
instrumentation and logic used in the Feedwater Control System and
Turbine Control System. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a
[[Page 51382]]
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed design change to add a redundant high reactor water
level trip channel to both trip systems, and the associated TS
changes, do not adversely impact the instrumentation's ability to
perform the functions described above. The design change will
utilize installed spare trip units and relay contacts of the same
design as those presently credited to meet TS 3.3.2.2 requirements.
The method in which the reactor water level is sensed and the
reactor water level setpoints at which a trip is initiated are not
impacted. The instrumentation response times and the instrumentation
output to the equipment being tripped remains the same. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Furthermore, there
will be no change in the types or significant increase in the
amounts of any effluents released offsite.
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 alter the parameters within which
the plant is operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or
mitigative actions are initiated that are affected by the proposed
change. This proposed change will not alter the manner in which
equipment operation is initiated nor will the demands on mitigating
equipment be changed. The proposed change to TS 3.3.2.2 adds
redundant instrumentation to improve system reliability, and
increase maintenance and testing flexibility. The instrumentation
being added to the trip logic utilizes the same transmitters, and
the same type of trip units and trip relays, as presently used to
monitor reactor water level and initiate Emergency Core Cooling
System operation.
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?
Margins of safety are established in the design of components,
the configuration of components to meet certain performance
parameters, and in the establishment of setpoints to initiate alarms
or actions. The proposed amendment supports a change to the logic
that trips the three feedwater pumps and the main turbine from a
two-out-of-two initiation logic to a one-out-of-two twice initiation
logic. The proposed amendment does not alter the setpoints at which
the trip function occurs, the response time of the trip initiation
logic, or the plant response following a valid trip signal. The
proposed changes to the TS 3.3.2.2 Required Actions and Completion
Times are consistent with other instrumentation TS that incorporate
a one-out-of-two twice initiation logic.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
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.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: August 4, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specification 3.7.1.3,
``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' to allow a 24-hour average temperature to be
used if ultimate heat sink temperature exceeds 89.5 [deg]F provided the
ultimate heat sink temperature or safety auxiliary cooling system
temperature does not exceed 95 [deg]F.
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 ultimate heat sink (UHS) is not an accident indicator. An
increase in UHS temperature will not increase the probability of
occurrence of an accident. The proposed change will allow plant
operation to continue if temperature of the UHS exceeds 89.5 [deg]F
provided that UHS temperature averaged over the previous 24-hour
period is less than 89.5 [deg]F and the UHS temperature and safety
auxiliary cooling system (SACS) temperatures do not exceed 95
[deg]F. Maintaining these temperatures less than or equal to 95
[deg]F ensures that accident mitigation equipment will continue to
perform its required function.
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 of
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not install any new or different
equipment or modify equipment in the plant. The proposed change will
not alter the operation or function of structures, systems or
components. The response of the plant and the operators following a
design basis accident is unaffected by this change. The proposed
change does not introduce any new failure modes and the design basis
heat removal capability of the safety related components is
maintained at the increased UHS temperature limit.
Therefore, the proposed chage will 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The increase to the UHS temperature will not adversely affect
design basis accident mitigation equipment. Ensuring that SACS
temperature remains below 95 [deg]F when UHS is above 89.5 [deg]F
ensures that heat removal capability is within the current analyzed
limits. Accident mitigation equipment will continue to function as
assumed in the accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
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.
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
[[Page 51383]]
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 e-mail to [email protected].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: December 17, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Appendix B,
Environmental Protection Plan (non-radiological) of the Clinton
Facility Operating License.
Date of issuance: August 9, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 166.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Environmental Protection Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (70 FR
19112).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: October 20, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Table 4.1-1,
``Instrument Surveillance Requirements,'' of the Technical
Specifications and associated Bases to extend the functional testing
surveillance interval from monthly to a semi-annual interval for
reactor trip system instrumentation channels, and from the current
monthly to quarterly for the reactor trip devices.
Date of issuance: August 11, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 255.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 23, 2004 (69
FR 68181)
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: June 24, 2004, as supplemented
February 24, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised TMI-1
Technical Specification (TS) 4.0.2 to adopt the provisions of Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveller TSTF-358, Revision 6,
revising the required actions and time constraints regarding missed
surveillances. The amendment also added a new Section 6.18 to the TSs
incorporating a Technical Specifications Bases Control Program.
Date of issuance: August 12, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 256.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR
9987).
The supplement dated February 24, 2005, 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 . The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: June 21, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes Technical
Specification Section 5.5.14, ``Technical Specifications (TS) Bases
Control Program,'' to incorporate changes in Section 50.59 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations terminology. The amendment also
revises Section 5.7.1, ``High Radiation Area,'' by adding wording that
was inadvertently deleted with the issuance of the Improved Standard
Technical Specifications in Amendment No. 176.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2005.
Effective date: August 2, 2005.
Amendment No.: 205.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2004 (69 FR
53101).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: December 23, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocated certain
Technical Specifications (TSs) to the Millstone Power Station, Unit No.
3 Technical Requirements Manual.
Date of issuance: August 11, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 225.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR
29788).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2004, as supplemented by
letters dated April 26 and June 8, 2005.
[[Page 51384]]
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the existing
steam generator (SG) tube surveillance program to be consistent with
that being proposed by the Technical Specification (TS) Task Force
(TSTF) in TSTF-449. These changes revise definitions in TS 1.1, reactor
coolant system operational leakage in TS 3.4.13, SG program in TS
5.5.9, and SG tube inspection reports in TS 5.6.7, and add a new TS
3.4.16 on SG tube integrity. Also, as a result of the licensee
replacing the SGs with SGs having a new Alloy 690 thermally treated
tubing design, the TSs are revised to reflect this replacement.
Date of issuance: August 10, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to resumption of operation from the 1R19 refueling outage
scheduled for the fall of 2005.
Amendment No.: 224.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of notices in Federal Register: November 9, 2004 (69 FR 64987)
and May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29790). The supplement dated June 8, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 10, 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: December 6, 2004, as
supplemented on June 14, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment makes administrative
and other miscellaneous changes to the Facility Operating License (FOL)
and Technical Specifications (TSs) including correction of references
and deleting obsolete or redundant TS requirements and surveillances.
Date of Issuance: August 15, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 226.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the
FOL and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 18, 2005 (70 FR
2888). The supplement 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 August 15, 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: September 15, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted the
Technical Specification requirements to maintain hydrogen recombiners
and hydrogen/oxygen monitors and related Surveillance Requirements.
Date of issuance: August 11, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendments Nos.: 256 and 259.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 1, 2005, (70
FR 5244). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: April 22, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) related to fuel handling and storage.
Specifically, the changes revised TS 3/4.9.11, ``Storage Pool Water
Level,'' TS 3/4.9.12, ``Storage Pool Ventilation,'' TS 3/4.9.13,
``Spent Fuel Assembly Storage,'' and TS 5.6, ``Fuel Storage,'' to
reflect that spent fuel storage racks are no longer installed in the
cask pit or transfer pit. Fuel storage racks were permitted to be
temporarily installed in the cask pit and transfer pit during a project
to increase spent fuel pool (SFP) storage capacity. All temporarily
installed fuel storage racks have now been moved into the SFP.
Additionally, the changes relocated the requirements of TS 3/4.9.7,
``Crane Travel--Fuel Handling Building,'' to the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station Technical Requirements Manual. The changes to TS 3/4.9.13
and TS 5.6 also reflected that there are no longer low density fuel
storage racks in the SFP. The changes made TS requirements consistent
with the current fuel storage design.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 266.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR
29795).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: February 22, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications by eliminating the requirements to provide the NRC
monthly operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure
reports.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 267.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR
24651).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: February 22, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications by eliminating the requirements to submit the NRC
monthly operating reports and annual occupational radiation exposure
reports.
[[Page 51385]]
Date of issuance: August 16, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 136.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR
24651).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: October 14, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises a technical
specification surveillance requirement to change the required frequency
of the reactor building spray nozzle surveillance from once every 10
years to ``following maintenance that could result in nozzle
blockage.''
Date of issuance: August 4, 2005.
Effective date: August 4, 2005.
Amendment No.: 219.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises 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 August 4, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of application for amendments: February 25, 2005, as
supplemented June 2, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
Technical Specifications by revising the near-end-of-life moderator
temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance requirement by placing a set
of conditions on core performance, which, if met, would allow
conditional exemption from the required MTC measurement.
Date of issuance: August 8, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 288, 270.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2005 (70 FR
15943).
The supplement dated June 2, 2005, 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8,
2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: September 1, 2004, as
supplemented by letter dated May 17, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve the use of
Generation of Thermal-Hydraulic Information Containment Version 7.1
patch 1 (GOTHIC), for licensing analyses for the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plants to (1) evaluate the short-term peak pressure and
temperature response of the containment atmosphere to large pipe breaks
in high energy piping systems--the design-basis loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) and the design-basis main steam line break, and (2) to
evaluate the long-term containment response following a design-basis
LOCA.
Date of issuance: August 12, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 171,161.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Updated Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 28, 2004 (69
FR 57990).
The supplemental letter 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 12, 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: March 5, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3 to require that
only one secondary containment access door in each access opening be
verified closed. In addition, SR 3.6.4.1.3 allows entry and exit access
between required secondary containment zones that have a single door.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 224 and 201.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 27, 2004 (69 FR
22882).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 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: September 8, 2004.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the SSES 1
and 2 Technical Specification 3.8.7, ``Distribution Systems-
Operating,'' to add an action note to address the potential for
deenergized Class 1E battery chargers, and correct three unrelated
editorial changes.
Date of issuance: August 17, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 225 and 202.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR
29798).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: October 1, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment deleted the
Technical Specifications (TSs) associated with hydrogen recombiners,
and hydrogen and oxygen monitors.
Date of issuance: August 9, 2005.
[[Page 51386]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 160.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: This amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2005 (70 FR
12749).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak
Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: March 15, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specification 3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency Filtration/
Pressurization System (CREFS).'' The revision allows a one-time
extension from 24 hours to 14 days of the allowable duration of
operation with control room boundary inoperable.
Date of issuance: August 11, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 120, 120.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR
29801).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 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.
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,
[[Page 51387]]
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 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).
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: August 8, 2005, as supplemented
August 11, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.3.7, ``Containment Spray System,'' specifically,
increasing the maximum lake water temperature limit in specification f.
from 81 [deg]F to 83 [deg]F.
Date of issuance: August 12, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be
implemented within 5 days.
Amendment No.: 190.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated August 12,
2005.
Attorney for licensee: Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire, Winston &
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 2005.
[[Page 51388]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-16979 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P