[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54085-54094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17888]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19, 2005, to August 31, 2005. The
last biweekly notice was published on August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51378).
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
[[Page 54086]]
consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should
circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure
to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or
shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to
the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very
infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene
is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-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).
[[Page 54087]]
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].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendments request: August 11, 2005.
Description of amendments request: The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.3.9
with respect to the allowed leakage rate through each Main Steam
Isolation Valve (MSIV). Specifically, the limit is revised from an
allowable leakage rate of less than or equal to 11.5 standard cubic
feet per hour (scfh) through each MSIV to less than or equal to 100
scfh through each main steam line (MSL) with the combined leakage of
the four MSLs being less than or equal to 150 scfh. Also, changes to TS
3.3.7.1, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System
Instrumentation,'' are also included to incorporate new automatic
initiation functions for the CREV system to support the MSIV leakage
rate change proposal.
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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change revises SR 3.6.1.3.9 with respect to the
allowed leakage rate through each MSIV. Specifically, the limit is
revised from an allowable leakage rate of less than or equal to 11.5
scfh per MSIV to less than or equal to 100 scfh for any one MSL with
the combined leakage of the four MSLs being less than or equal to
150 scfh. Also, to support the MSIV leakage rate change, additional
automatic initiation functions for the CREV system will be
implemented. The associated changes to TS 3.3.7.1, ``Control Room
Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System Instrumentation,'' are also
made.
The proposed change to the MSIV leakage limit does not involve
physical change to any plant structure, system, or component. As a
result, no new failure modes of the MSIVs has been introduced. The
CREV system initiation logic is being modified; however, this system
performs a mitigating function and has no impact on any initiating
event frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes cannot increase in
the probability a previously evaluated accident.
A plant-specific radiological analysis has been performed to
assess the effects of the proposed increase in MSIV leakage
acceptance criteria in terms of offsite doses and control room
doses. The analysis shows the dose contribution from the proposed
increase in leakage acceptance criteria is acceptable compared to
dose limits prescribed in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i) for the exclusion
area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low population zone, and 10 CFR
50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room personnel. The CREV system
initiation logic modification will result in automatic initiation of
the CREV system based on signals from the secondary containment
isolation logic as an input to each division of the CREV control
logic. This change is made to ensure that doses to control room
personnel remain within the requirements of 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii)
in the event of a loss-of-coolant-accident [LOCA].
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different type of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change to the MSIV leakage limit will not adversely
impact MSIV functionality and will not create a failure of the MSIVs
of a different kind than previously considered. The CREV system
initiation logic is being modified to initiate automatically using
signals from the secondary containment isolation logic. This
provides redundant/diverse protection for control room operators in
the event of a LOCA. The required logic modifications will be
performed such that faults originating in the CREV logic cannot
affect either the secondary containment isolation logic or the
functions which initiate secondary containment isolation.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
Response: No.
The allowable leak rate specified for the MSIVs is used to
quantify a maximum amount of leakage assumed to bypass containment.
The results of the re-analysis supporting these changes were
evaluated against the dose limits contained in 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(i)
for the exclusion area, 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(ii) for the low
population zone, and 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) for control room
personnel. Sufficient margin relative to the regulatory limits is
maintained even when conservative assumptions and methods are
utilized. The CREV system initiation logic is being modified to
initiate automatically using signals from the secondary containment
isolation logic. This provides redundant/diverse protection for
control room operators in the event of a LOCA.
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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Section Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendments request: August 11, 2005.
Description of amendments request: The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,'' by removing an exception that allows for
compensation of flow meter instrument inaccuracies in accordance with
ANSI [American National Standards Institute]/ANS [American Nuclear
Society]-56.8-1987 rather than meeting the instrument accuracy
requirements in ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994. The exception is no longer
necessary due to the availability of test instruments capable of
satisfying the instrument accuracy requirements of ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994.
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:
This request has been evaluated against the standards in 10 CFR
50.92, and has been determined to not involve a significant hazards
consideration. In support of this conclusion, the following analysis is
provided:
1. Does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed removal, from Technical Specification 5.5.12, of an
exception that allows for compensation of instrumentation
inaccuracies in accordance with ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987, rather than
ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994, does not involve physical changes to any plant
structure, system, or component. Furthermore, removal of the
exception allowing for the accounting for containment leakage rate
test instrumentation accuracy using ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987 has no impact
on the initiating frequency for any previously evaluated accident.
Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase the probability of a
previously evaluated accident.
[[Page 54088]]
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are
dependent on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the
behavior of the fuel during the analyzed accident, the availability
and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in
response to the evaluated event, and the setpoints at which these
actions are initiated. Use of leakage rate test instruments that
meet the accuracy provisions of ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994 complies with NEI
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 94-01, Revision 0, ``Industry Guideline
for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 50 Appendix J,''
and Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak--
Test Program,'' September 1995, and ensures that measured
containment leakage rates are maintained within specified limits.
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?
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors to
that accident. New accident precursors may be created by
modifications of the plant configuration, including changes in
allowable modes of operation. The proposed change regarding
containment leakage test instrument accuracy does not involve
installation of any new or different equipment. No installed
equipment is being operated in a different manner than currently
evaluated. No new initiating events or transients will result from
the use of more accurate containment leakage test instruments.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The proposed removal, from Technical Specification 5.5.12, of an
exception that allows for compensation of instrumentation
inaccuracies in accordance with ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987 rather than ANSI/
ANS-56.8-1994 does not alter the assumptions of the accident
analyses or the Technical Specification Bases. The margin of safety
is established through the design of the plant structures, systems,
and components; through the parameters within which the plant is
operated; through the establishment of setpoints for actuation of
equipment relied upon to respond to an event; and through margins
contained within the safety analyses. The use of industry standard
ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994, rather than ANSI/ANS-56.8-1987, in accounting
for the accuracy of containment leakage rate testing instrumentation
will not adversely impact the performance of plant structures,
systems, components, and setpoints relied upon to respond to
mitigate an accident or transient. 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Section Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.
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 amendment request: June 27, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
change the SSES 1 and 2 technical specifications for reactor protection
system and control rod block instrumentation, oscillation power range
monitor (OPRM) instrumentation, recirculation loops operating, shutdown
margin test--refueling, and the core operating limits report. The
proposed changes involve the modification of the existing power range
neutron monitor system (PRNM) by installation of the General Electric
Nuclear Measurement Analysis and Control PRNM system. The modification
of the PRNM system would replace analog technology with a more reliable
digital upgrade.
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 probability (frequency of occurrence) of DBAs [design-basis
accidents] occurring is not affected by the PRNM system, as the PRNM
system does not interact with equipment whose failure could cause an
accident. Compliance with the regulatory criteria established for
plant equipment will be maintained with the installation of the
upgraded PRNM system. Scram setpoints in the PRNM system will be
established so that all analytical limits are met.
The unavailability of the new system will be equal to or less
than the existing system and, as a result, the scram reliability
will be equal to or better than the existing system. No new
challenges to safety-related equipment will result from the PRNM
system modification. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will replace the currently installed and NRC
approved OPRM Option III long-term stability solution with an NRC
approved Option III long-term stability solution digitally
integrated into the PRNM equipment. The PRNM hardware incorporates
the OPRM Option III detect and suppress solution reviewed and
approved by the NRC in the References 1, 2, 3 and 4 Licensing
Topical Reports, the same as the currently installed separate OPRM
system. The OPRM meets the GDC [general design criterion] 10,
``Reactor Design,'' and 12, ``Suppression of Reactor Power
Oscillations,'' requirements by automatically detecting and
suppressing design basis thermal-hydraulic oscillations prior to
exceeding the fuel MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] Safety Limit.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above, the operation of the new PRNM system and
replacement of the currently installed OPRM Option III stability
solution with the Option III OPRM function integrated into the PRNM
equipment will not increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The components of the PRNM system will be supplied to equivalent
or better design and qualification criteria than is currently
required for the plant.
Equipment that could be affected by PRNM system has been
evaluated. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup,
accident scenario, or system interaction mode was identified.
Therefore, the upgraded PRNM system will not adversely affect plant
equipment.
The new PRNM system uses digital equipment that has ``control''
processing points and software controlled digital processing
compared to the existing PRNM system that uses mostly analog and
discrete component processing (excluding the existing OPRM).
Specific failures of hardware and potential software common cause
failures are different from the existing system. The effects of
potential software common cause failure are mitigated by specific
hardware design and system architecture. Failure(s) on the system
has the same overall effect. No new or different kind of accident is
introduced.
Therefore, the PRNM system will not adversely effect plant
equipment.
The current OPRM Option III plant design is replaced with an
OPRM function digitally integrated into the PRNM. The currently
installed Power Range Monitor system is replaced with a PRNM system
that performs all of the existing PRNM functions plus OPRM. Failure
of neither the APRM [average power range monitor] nor OPRM functions
in the replacement system can cause an accident of a kind not
previously evaluated in the SAR [safety analysis report].
Based on the above, the proposed change will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 54089]]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The upgraded PRNM system will not involve a reduction in a
margin of safety, as loads on plant equipment will not increase, and
reactions to, or results of transients and hypothetical accidents,
will not increase from those presently evaluated.
No change has been made to the Analytical Limits or Technical
Specification Allowable Values. The present system characteristics
such as drift, calibration setpoint, and accuracy envelop the new
system requirements.
The upgraded PRNM system response time and operator information
is either maintained or improved over the current Power Range
Neutron Monitor system. The upgraded PRNM system has improved
channel trip accuracy compared to the current system.
The current safety analyses demonstrate that the existing OPRM
Option III related Technical Specification requirements are adequate
to detect and suppress an instability event. There is no impact on
the MCPR Safety Limit identified for an instability event. The
replacement OPRM system integrated into the new PRNM equipment
implements the same functions per the same requirements as the
currently installed system and has equivalent Technical
Specification requirements. Therefore, the margin of safety
associated with the MCPR Safety Limit is still maintained.
Based on the above, the proposed change will 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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3,
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
NRC Section Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment requests: July 15, 2005.
Description of amendment requests: The amendments are for the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, operating
licenses, but they will involve Unit 1, which is not an operating
nuclear plant and is in the process of being decommissioned. The
amendments would revise License Condition 2.B.(6) for both SONGS, Units
2 and 3 by (1) deleting the sentence ``Transhipment of Unit 1 fuel
between Units 1 and [2 or 3] shall be in accordance with SCE [Southern
California Edison] letters to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated
* * * and in accordance with the Quality Assurance requirements of 10
CFR Part 71'' and (2) adding the phrase ``and by the decommissioning of
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1'' to the remaining
sentence in the license condition. This change would recognize that
Unit 1 is now in the stage of decommissioning and that in the future
any radioactive waste water produced in the further decommissioning of
Unit 1 would be released from the San Onofre site by transferring the
waste water from Unit 1 to Units 2 and 3. The processing (if required)
and discharging of this waste water would be using the Units 2 and 3
radioactive waste system and ocean outfall discharge 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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated because there is no increase in the total San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Unit 1 radioactive
wastewater created by this change.
The yard drain sump and all interconnecting piping will be
entirely within the SONGS owner-controlled area. The new design will
have more above ground piping, which presents an increase in [pipe]
break probability. However, the system design complies with
guidelines provided in NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission]
Regulatory Guide 1.26 for nuclear service and with American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.1. Failure of the above ground piping
is bounded by the Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank
failures, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) Safety Analyses.
The proposed change will allow wastewater produced and currently
being discharged at Unit 1[, using approved programs and procedures
as allowed by the SONGS Unit 1 license,] to be discharged through
the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 ocean outfall using the established systems,
programs, and procedures [as allowed by the SONGS, Units 2 and 3
licenses]. [Unit 1 is not operating and is in the process of being
decommissioned.] There will be no increase in the total
radioactivity or quantity of wastewater released from the site as a
result of the change. The existing SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3
radioactive effluent control program as required by Technical
Specification 5.5.2.3 will still be met.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated [for Units 2 and 3] is not [significantly]
increased.
(2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No. The transfer of the SONGS Unit 1 sump discharge to
the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 outfall does not create a new or different
kind of accident. Within SONGS[, Unit] 2 and 3, the new piping will
be constructed and supported consistent with the mechanical design
standards for radioactive service water piping. These standards
ensure design adequacy for intended function and service. The pipe
routing is away from any plant system credited for either Unit's
safe shutdown, so a pipe rupture cannot impact the safe operation of
SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3. The yard areas are already analyzed for
postulated radioactive pipe rupture from the SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3
radwaste discharge piping. The addition of the Unit 1 yard sump
pipeline that traverses SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 does not create a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated is not created [for Units 2
and 3].
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No. The proposed change will allow radioactive or
potentially radioactive waste water produced and currently being
discharged at Unit 1 using approved programs and procedures as
allowed by the SONGS Unit 1 license, to be discharged through the
SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 ocean outfalls using the approved programs
and procedures as allowed by the SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 licenses. A
pipe rupture at SONGS[, Units] 2 and 3 will not significantly reduce
the margin of safety. Any water from a rupture in this pipe will be
collected and diverted to the yard drains, where it will mix with
the SONGS [Unit] 2 or 3 outfalls.
The discharge of the waste water from Unit 1 through either Unit
2 or 3 outfall will be performed in accordance with existing
programs and procedures. In addition, the radiation monitor and its
interlocks will be used to control the release from the yard drain
sump. The concentration at the outfall will be below the regulatory
limits in 10 CFR 20 Appendix B. The requirements of the radioactive
effluent control program as required by Technical Specification
5.5.2.3 will continue to be met.
Therefore, a significant reduction in a margin of safety is not
involved [for Units 2 and 3].
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California
[[Page 54090]]
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770
NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, Acting.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50-424
and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 12, 2005.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments
would revise the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and
2, Technical Specifications (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube
Surveillance Program,'' on a one-time basis, to incorporate changes in
the SG inspection scope fro VEGP, Unit 2 during Refueling Outage 11 and
the subsequent operating cycle. The proposed changes are applicable to
Unit 2 only for inspections during Refueling Outage 11 and for the
subsequent operating cycle. The proposed changes modify the inspection
requirements for portions of SG tubes within the hot leg tubesheet
region of the SGs. The license for VEGP, Unit 1 is affected only due to
the fact that Units 1 and 2 use common TSs.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48985).
Expiration date of individual notice: September 21, 2005.
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 e-mail to [email protected].
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: February 14, 2005, as
supplemented by letter dated July 13, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the
surveillance requirements (SR) for the station batteries as specified
in SR 3.8.4.5, battery service test, and SR 3.8.4.6, battery
performance test in TS 3.8.4, DC Sources--Operating.
Date of issuance: August 25, 2005.
Effective date: August 25, 2005.
Amendment No.: 206.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR
29787). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 25, 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: January 19, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications 5.6.7.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR),'' to add the topical report DPC-NE-1005P-A, ``Duke Power
Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX.'' This report
has been previously approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Date of issuance: August 23, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 230 and 212.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR
9990).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 23, 2004, as supplemented by
letter dated April 19, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications to allow revision of reactor operational limits, as
specified in the River Bend Station Core Operating Limits Report, to
compensate for the inoperability of the End of Cycle Recirculation Pump
Trip Instrumentation.
Date of issuance: August 25, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
[[Page 54091]]
Amendment No.: 146.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2005 (70 FR
24650). The supplement dated April 19, 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 25, 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: December 14, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed Technical
Specifications (TSs) to reflect surveillance frequency improvements.
Specifically, the amendment removed the additional requirement to
perform functional testing of the average power range monitor (APRM)
and anticipated transient without scram recirculation pump trip
alternate rod insertion instrumentation on each startup, when the
nominally-required quarterly testing is current. Additionally,
performance of the APRM High Flux heat balance calibration was modified
to apply only after 12 hours at > 25% power. Additional editorial
clarifications related to TS Tables 4.2.A through 4.2.G, Note 2 and
associated Table references were also included.
Date of issuance: August 29, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 217.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR
9991).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 29, 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: October 5, 2004, as supplemented
on April 22, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 6.7.C ``Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing
Program,'' to allow a one-time extension to the 10-year interval for
performing the next Type A containment integrated leak rate test
(ILRT). Specifically, the change would allow the test to be performed
within 15 years from the last ILRT which was performed in April 1995.
Date of Issuance: August 31, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 227.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 21, 2004 (69
FR 76492). 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 31, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: January 21, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
Isolation Condenser System heat removal capability surveillance
requirement (SR) by adding a note to the technical specification
section SR 3.5.3.4. This note allows a delay of 12 hours after adequate
reactor power is achieved to perform the test.
Date of issuance: August 25, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 215,207.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2005.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 25, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: May 20, 2004, as supplemented
by letters dated February 18 and July 13, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications
(TSs) 2.2.1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Setpoints,''
TS 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,'' TS 3/4.3.6,
``Control Rod Block Instrumentation,'' TS 3/4.4.1, ``Recirculation
System,'' and TS 6.9.1, ``Routine Reports,'' and the associated TS
Bases. The amendments support activation of the trip outputs of the
oscillation power range monitor portion of the power range neutron
monitoring system.
Date of issuance: August 26, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 177 and 139.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. The amendments
revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR
62474). The supplements dated February 18 and July 13, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: August 24, 2004, as supplemented
August 10, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises Technical
Specifications (TSs) related to the surveillance requirements for the
emergency feedwater system.
Date of issuance: August 16, 2005.
[[Page 54092]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 173.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 12, 2004 (69 FR
60685).
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.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of application for amendments: June 30, 2004, as supplemented
by letters dated December 2, 2004, May 27, 2005, and July 18, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed changes revise
Technical Specification 5.5.2.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to include a one-time extension of the 10-year period of the
performance-based leakage rate testing program for Type A tests as
prescribed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 0,
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix J.''
Date of issuance: August 24, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 198 and 189.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 3, 2004 (69 FR
46589). The supplemental letters dated December 2, 2004, May 27, and
July 18, 2005, provided 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 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
[[Page 54093]]
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 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).
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 amendment request: August 21, 2005, as supplemented August
22, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revise Technical
Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.8.1, Condition C.2.1,
to permit a one-time extension of 96 hours of the Completion Times for
Keowee Hydro Unit 2.
Date of issuance: August 23, 2005.
Effective date: August 23, 2005.
[[Page 54094]]
Amendment Nos.: 347, 349, and 348.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revises the technical specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated August 23,
2005.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of September, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-17888 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P