[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56499-56509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19028]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 September 1, 2005, to September 15, 2005.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 13, 2005 (70 FR
54085).
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
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene
is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
[[Page 56500]]
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 email to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by email to [email protected].
Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Docket
Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370,
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 5, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments request
NRC consent to the indirect transfer of control of the licenses for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, the McGuire Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2, and the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The
transfers of control will result from the creation of a new holding
company that will become the parent of the current licensee. The new
holding company, to be named Duke Energy Corporation, that will result
from the business combination of Duke Energy with Cinergy Corporation
(Cinergy). The licensee, current Duke Energy, will convert to a limited
liability company (LLC) and be re-named Duke Power Company LLC (Duke
Power).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The Conforming Amendments Do Not Involve a Significant Increase in
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated
The amendments do not involve any change in the design,
configuration, or operation of the nuclear units. All Limiting
Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety
Limits specified in the Technical Specifications remain unchanged.
Also, the Physical Security Plans and related plans, the Operator
Training and Requalification Programs, the Quality Assurance
Programs, and the Emergency Plans will not be materially changed by
the proposed license transfers and amendments.
The technical qualifications of the operating licensee will not
be reduced. Personnel engaged in operation, maintenance,
engineering, assessment, training, and other related services will
not be changed. The Duke Energy officers and executives currently
responsible for the overall safe operation of the nuclear plants are
expected to continue in the same capacity.
[[Page 56501]]
2. The Conforming Amendments Do Not Create the Possibility of a New or
Different kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated
The amendments do not involve any change in the design,
configuration, or operation of the nuclear plant. The current plant
design and design bases will remain the same. The current plant
safety analyses, therefore, remain complete and accurate in
addressing the design basis events and in analyzing plant response
and consequences.
The Limiting Conditions for Operations, Limit Safety System
Settings and Safety Limits specified in the Technical Specifications
are not affected by the proposed changes. As such, the plant
conditions for which the design basis accident analyses were
performed remain valid.
The amendments do not introduce a new mode of plant operation or
new accident precursors, do not involve any physical alterations to
plant configurations, or make changes to system set points that
could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
3. The Conforming Amendments Do Not Involve a Significant Reduction in
a Margin of Safety
The amendments do not involve a change in the design,
configuration, or operation of the nuclear plants. The change does
not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems,
and components perform their safety function or their design and
licensing bases.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions
for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits
specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no
change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to
any of these margins.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department
(PB05E), Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte,
North Carolina 28201-1006.
NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: August 17, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
allow a one-time extension of the 72-hour Completion Time for the
Required Action of Condition B of Technical Specification 3.7.1,
``Standby Service Water (SW) System and Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' and
a one-time exemption from Note 1 of part B.1 of this Required Action.
Specifically, the proposed one-time extension request is for an
additional 72 hours to the Completion Time and would result in a 144-
hour Completion Time for an inoperable SW subsystem. This would allow
extensive maintenance to be conducted on the SW train B pump, not
capable of being completed in the current 72-hour Completion Time.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Response: No.
Since only one subsystem of SW components is affected by the
condition and an additional failure is not considered while a plant
is in a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) Action, the operable
SW subsystem is adequate to maintain compliance with the plant's
design basis. Thus, this condition will not alter assumptions
relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event.
Energy Northwest has determined that there is no significant
risk associated with the operation of the plant for an additional 3
days with one SW subsystem out of service. The incremental change in
risk has been quantitatively evaluated using the guidance of
Regulatory Guide [RG] 1.174 and 1.177. The incremental risk values
are within the criteria of Region III (where the increase in risk is
considered ``very small'') as established in RG 1.174.
Based on this evaluation, there is no significant increase in
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Response: No.
This proposed action only extends the CT [Completion Time] and
will not physically alter the plant. No new or different type of
equipment will be installed by this action. The changes in methods
governing normal plant operation are consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions. No change to the system as evaluated in the
Columbia Generating Station safety analysis is proposed. Therefore,
this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Response: No.
Columbia is designed with sufficient redundancy such that a SW
subsystem may be removed from service for maintenance or testing.
The remaining subsystem is capable of providing water and removing
heat loads to satisfy the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report] requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown.
A risk-informed evaluation concluded that the risk contribution
of the CT extension is non-risk significant.
There will be no change to the manner in which safety limits or
limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any
change to those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment
of protection functions. For these reasons, the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the analysis provided herein, the proposed amendments
do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Thomas C. Poindexter, Esq., Winston &
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, Acting.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request:
July 27, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
technical specification (TS) 3/4.8.1.1, ``A. C. Sources--Operating,''
to adopt a more recent standard for diesel fuel oil testing and remove
the restriction that certain surveillance requirements be performed
during shutdown.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS SR [surveillance requirement]
4.8.1.1.2.b affects the testing standard for the fuel oil supply for
the emergency diesel generators (EDGs). The fuel oil supply is not
an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The fuel oil
supply supports the accident mitigation functions of the EDGs, which
serve as the standby source for A.C. power in the event of a loss of
offsite power. Adoption of a more recent standard does not affect
the capability of the diesel fuel oil to perform its required
function. Therefore, the proposed change to
[[Page 56502]]
SR 4.8.1.1.2.b does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.d affects the performance
of load rejection testing and the 60-minute loaded run at greater
than or equal to 2000 kW. Evaluations and operating history have
demonstrated that performance of these tests online will not impact
electrical distribution system reliability. No anticipated
operational occurrence or accident would occur as a result of
performing these tests online. Although the EDGs are rendered
inoperable and unavailable during performance of these tests, these
tests would be performed in conjunction with testing required by
other specifications; therefore, the accumulated time of EDG
inoperability and unavailability would not increase. The proposed
change to SR 4.8.1.1.2.d 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 to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.b affects the testing
standard for the fuel oil supply for EDGs. Applying the more recent
standard for fuel oil testing does not create any new or different
accident initiators because adoption of a more recent standard does
not affect the capability of the diesel fuel oil to perform its
required function.
The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.d affects the performance
of load rejection testing and the 60-minute loaded run at greater
than or equal to 2000 kW. Evaluations and operating experience have
demonstrated that performance of these tests online will not impact
electrical distribution system reliability. No new or different
accidents could occur as a result of performing these tests online.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.b affects the testing
standard for the fuel oil supply for EDGs. Adoption of a more recent
standard does not affect the capability of the diesel fuel oil to
perform its required function.
The proposed change to TS SR 4.8.1.1.2.d affects the performance
of load rejection testing and the 60-minute loaded run at greater
than or equal to 2000 kW. Evaluations and operating experience have
demonstrated that performance of these tests online regardless of
the test outcome will not impact electrical distribution system
reliability. The required testing will continue to demonstrate
acceptable EDG performance. 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: Mary E. O'Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: July 27, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
technical specification (TS) 3/4.10.2, ``Special Test Exceptions--
Physics Tests,'' to increase the allowed time between the flux channel
Channel Functional Tests and the beginning of Mode 2 Physics Tests from
12 hours to 24 hours.
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 changes affect the Limiting Condition for Operation for
``Special Test Exceptions--Physics Tests,'' in particular, the
neutron flux instrumentation CHANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST that must
precede PHYSICS TESTING in MODE 2. The neutron flux instrumentation
is not an accident initiator, but is credited for two events. These
events are Uncontrolled Control Rod Assembly Group Withdrawal From a
Subcritical Condition (Startup Accident), and Uncontrolled Control
Rod Assembly Group Withdrawal at Power. The proposed change will not
impact the operation of the neutron flux instrumentation during
these events. Consequently, the proposed changes will have no impact
on the probability or consequences of any 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 changes affect the Limiting Condition for Operation for
Refueling Operations--Instrumentation, in particular, the neutron
flux instrumentation. The changes are only applicable in MODE 2.
Under the proposed change, the neutron flux instrumentation will
continue to operate in the same manner as previously considered.
Accident initial conditions and assumptions remain as previously
analyzed.
The proposed changes do not introduce any new or different
accident initiators. In addition, the requested increase in the
allowed time between the flux channel Channel Functional Tests and
the beginning of Mode 2 Physics Tests from 12 hours to 24 hours will
not adversely impact the instrumentation's stability or capability.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes affect the Limiting Condition for Operation for
Refueling Operations--Instrumentation; in particular, the neutron
flux instrumentation. The proposed changes to TS will not result in
design changes to the neutron flux instrumentation or in changes to
how the neutron flux instrumentation is used. As discussed in the
response to question 1 above, channel operability will
continue to be ensured by the CHANNEL CHECK and CHANNEL CALIBRATION
requirements of TS 4.3.1.1.1. Therefore, 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: Mary E. O'Reilly, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Section Chief: Gene Y. Suh.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 11, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Figure 2-3 in Technical Specification (TS) 2.3(4) and related
technical information to this figure in the Basis of TS 3.6. This
figure shows the minimum volume of Tri-sodium Phosphate (TSP) required
for a specified reactor coolant system (RCS) hot zero power (HZP)
critical boron concentration (CBC) over the operating cycle.
Maintaining a volume of TSP in the baskets that is within the area of
acceptable operation of Figure 2-3 ensures that the recirculation water
in the containment sump attains a pH of 7.0 or greater following a
loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This figure allows the required volume
of TSP to gradually decrease as HZP CBC decreases during the operating
cycle. As HZP CBC decreases, less TSP is required to attain a pH of 7.0
or greater in the containment sump. Also, TS 3.6(2) is being revised to
remove the term Dodecahydrate to be consistent with Fort Calhoun
Station TS Amendment No. 232.
[[Page 56503]]
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.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant
that could affect system, component, or accident functions as a
result of revising the current volume of active TSP required during
Operating Modes 1 and 2 with a new figure that reflects the future
RCS volume change. All systems and components function as designed,
and the performance requirements have been evaluated and found to be
acceptable.
Allowing the required volume of active TSP to decrease over the
operating cycle as HZP CBC decreases will ensure a pH of 7.0 or
greater in the containment sump following a LOCA, yet provides [an]
adequate margin for EEQ [environmental equipment qualification]
concerns as containment sump pH is less likely to exceed 8.0.
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.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All
systems, structures, and components previously required for
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the TS.
The proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-related
systems or component and does not challenge the performance or
integrity of any safety-related system. The proposed change has
evaluated the TSP configuration such that no new accident scenarios
or single failures are introduced. Therefore, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Allowing the required volume of active TSP to decrease as HZP
CBC decreases still ensures a pH of 7.0 or greater in the
containment sump following a LOCA and still provides [an] adequate
margin for EEQ concerns as containment sump pH is less likely to
exceed 8.0. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluations were made that indicate that the margin for pH
control is not altered by the proposed changes. A TSP volume that is
dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated with respect to
neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These
evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control,
and hence, no reduction in the margin of safety related to post LOCA
conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, Acting.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 11, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment includes
various changes to the Technical Specifications (TS). Specifically,
Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) seeks to delete the surveillance
requirement (SR) of TS 2.10.2(9)b(iii) to verify the shutdown margin
every 8-hour shift during low power physics testing. This change will
make TS 2.10.2(9)b more consistent with SR 3.1.7 of NUREG-1432,
Standard Technical Specifications--Combustion Engineering Plants,
Revision 3.
The Containment Structural Tests Report of TS 5.9.3c is proposed
for deletion. Amendment No. 216 deleted TS 3.5(5), which required
submittal of the TS 5.9.3c report. The deletion of the report and the
remaining changes described in Attachment 1 are considered
administrative in nature.
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 [change] involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request (LAR) makes no changes to the
design or operation of the plant that could affect system,
component, or accident functions.
The deletion of Technical Specification (TS) 2.10.2(9)b(iii)
eliminates the need to verify shutdown margin (SDM) every 8 hours
during low power physics testing. Reactivity equivalent to at least
the highest estimated CEA worth is available from the operable CEA
[control element assembly] groups withdrawn (assuming the most
reactive CEA of the groups withdrawn is stuck in the fully withdrawn
position). Each CEA not fully inserted is demonstrated capable of
full insertion when tripped from at least the 50% withdrawn position
within 7 days of reducing SDM. Finally, the position of the
trippable control element assemblies (CEAs) during low power physics
testing continues to be verified every 2 hours. The SDM provided by
the CEAs ensures that the operators can respond promptly to
unexpected increases in core reactivity. Thus, this change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
Deletion of the Containment Structural Tests Report is not an
initiator of any previously evaluated accidents. OPPD will continue
to report conditions indicative of containment deterioration or
degradation in the Inservice Inspection (ISI) Summary Report
required by 10 CFR 50.55a, ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Section XI, Subsection IWA-6000, and TS 5.9.3a.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application
of standards for determining whether a significant hazards
consideration exists by providing certain examples (48 FR 14864) of
amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant
hazards considerations. One or more of these examples are cited to
justify deletion of the Containment Structural Tests Report and for
each of the remaining administrative changes. Thus, these changes do
not increase the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment [change] create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed change affects only the TSs and does not involve a
physical change to the plant. No modifications are made to existing
components nor will any new or different type of equipment be
installed. The deletion of the surveillance requirement (SR) to
verify SDM every 8 hours during low power physics testing does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The SRs that remain ensure that the SDM provided by the CEAs is
adequate and that the CEAs are capable of full insertion. CEA
positions will continue to be verified at least once per [a] 2-hour
interval during low power physics testing. The SDM provided by the
CEAs ensures that the operators can respond promptly to unexpected
increases in core reactivity.
The deletion of a report that is redundant to federal
regulations is an administrative change that does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. OPPD will
continue to report conditions indicative of containment
deterioration or degradation in the ISI Summary Report.
The remaining changes proposed by this LAR are administrative in
nature. These changes do not impose different
[[Page 56504]]
requirements and do not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis and licensing basis. Therefore, they do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment [change] involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect any safety analysis
assumptions. During low power physics testing, the position of the
trippable CEAs will continue to be verified at 2-hour intervals. The
deleted 8-hour SDM surveillance requirement is performed less
frequently, is redundant and unnecessary. The SDM provided by the
CEAs ensures that the operators can respond promptly to unexpected
increases in core reactivity. The Containment Structural Tests
Report can be deleted since OPPD will continue to report conditions
indicative of containment deterioration or degradation in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.55a in the ISI Summary Report required by TS 5.9.3a.
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: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502.
NRC Section Chief: Daniel S. Collins, Acting.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS),
Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
the reactor coolant system heatup and cooldown curves located in
Technical Specification (TS) section 3/4.4.9 to reflect the results of
the last reactor vessel surveillance specimen that was removed from the
reactor vessel and analyzed.
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 changes revise the P/T [pressure/temperature] limit
curves to provide figures that reflect the results of the analysis
performed on reactor vessel surveillance specimen Z. This analysis
was performed using NRC approved methodology as documented in WCAP
14040-NP-A, Revision 4, utilizing the 1998 ASME [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers] Code, Section XI through the 2000 addenda,
Appendix G requirements. These curves provide the limits for
operation of the Reactor Coolant System during heatup, cooldown,
criticality, and hydrostatic testing. These curves are provided
without instrument uncertainties included, however, the
uncertainties are included in the curves provided in the plant
operating procedures. The limits protect the reactor vessel from
brittle fracture by separating the region of acceptable operation
from the region where brittle fracture is postulated to occur.
Failure of the reactor vessel is not a VCSNS design basis accident,
and, in general, reactor vessel failure has a low probability of
occurrence and is not considered in the safety analysis. Therefore,
the 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 changes revises the P/T limits curves, Section 3/
4.4.9, to incorporate the results fo the analysis performed on
reactor vessel specimen Z. There are no physical plant design
changes or significant changes in any operating procedures. This
change adjusts the heatup and cooldown curves to reflect the shift
in nil-ductility reference temperature of the reactor vessel as a
result of neutron embrittlement. Therefore, the change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the P/T limits curves, Section 3/
4.4.9, to incorporate the results of the analysis performed on
reactor vessel specimen Z. The new P/T curves ensure that the 10 CFR
50 Appendix G, requirements are not exceeded during normal operation
including Reactor Coolant System transients during heatup, cooldown,
criticality and hydrostatic testing. The new P/T curves were
prepared, using approved industry methodology, for a projected
reactor vessel neutron exposure of 56 EFPY [effective full-power
year]. The proposed P/T limit curves reflect a shift of the limits
in a conservative direction from the current requirements.
Therefore, the change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Thomas G. Eppink, South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218.
NRC Section Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296, Browns Ferry
Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: July 29, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendments revised
the technical specification (TS) testing frequency for the surveillance
requirement (SR) 3.1.4.2, control rod scram time testing, from 120 days
cumulative operation in MODE 1 to 200 days cumulative operation in MODE
1.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing
in licensing amendment applications in the Federal Register on August
23, 2004 (69 FR 51864). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the
model NSHC determination in its application dated July 29, 2005.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency
of surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not
affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as
the tested component is still required to be operable. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed
change does not result in any new or different modes of plant
operation. 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?
[[Page 56505]]
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed
change continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the
assumptions in the safety analysis are protected. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Section Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.
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.
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 18, 2005.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed Technical
Specification changes are needed to accommodate the replacement of the
Reactor Building Emergency Sump suction inlet trash racks and screens
with strainers.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51852).
Expiration date of individual notice: September 30, 2005.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: January 27, 2005, revised by letter
dated August 12, 2005.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would allow the licensee to utilize a probabilistic methodology to
determine the contribution to main steamline break leakage rates for
the once-through steam generator (OTSG) from the tube end crack (TEC)
alternate repair criteria described in Improved Technical Specification
(ITS) 5.6.2.10.2.f and also involves a change to ITS 5.6.2.10.2.f to
incorporate the basis of the proposed probabilistic methodology and the
method and technical justification for projecting the TEC leakage that
may develop during the next operating cycle following the inservice
inspection of each OTSG.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50424).
Expiration date of individual notice: September 26, 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].
Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413, 50-414, 50-369,
and 50-370, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South
Carolina and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina.
Date of application for amendments: July 7, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications TS 3.9.1, ``Boron Concentration,'' to clarify
the technical requirements for boron concentration when the refueling
canal and the refueling cavity are not connected to the reactor coolant
system.
Date of issuance: September 1, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 231/213 and 226/221.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9 and
NPF-17: Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2005 (70 FR
44401).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 1, 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: December 20, 2004, as supplemented by
letters dated June 6 and August 10, 2005.
[[Page 56506]]
Brief description of amendment: The Amendment revised the safety
analysis report (SAR) to allow the licensee the use of a lifting tripod
(a special lifting device) to remove and install the reactor vessel
(RV) head and certain RV internals during refueling outages, using the
reactor building polar crane.
Date of issuance: August 30, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance. The SAR changes shall be
implemented in the next periodic update to the SAR in accordance with
Paragraph 50.71(e) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Amendment No.: 225.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the SAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 1, 2005 (70 FR
5242)
The supplements dated June 6 and August 10, 2005, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 30, 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: May 11, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment allows a one-time
extension of the surveillance interval for the reactor vessel internals
vent valves from September 2005 to March 2006.
Date of issuance: September 6, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 14 days.
Amendment No.: 268.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR
38719).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 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: December 20, 2004, as
supplemented by letter dated April 6, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.9.2, ``Refueling Operations--Instrumentation.''
Specifically, the changes revised TS 3/4.9.2 concerning source range
flux monitors to be more consistent with improved Standard Technical
Specifications. The changes achieve consistency with corresponding
requirements in NUREG-1430, ``Standard Technical Specifications Babcock
and Wilcox Plants,'' Revision 3, dated June 2004, with exceptions to
account for plant-specific design differences and retention of current
licensing basis requirements and commitments.
Date of issuance: September 12, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 269.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 15, 2005 (70
FR 7765). The supplement dated April 6, 2005, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally notice, and did not change the NRC staff
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register on February 15, 2005 (70 FR 7765).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 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: July 8, 2004.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deletes one-time use
footnotes that have expired or have already been used from the Crystal
River Unit 3 (CR-3) Improved Technical Specifications (ITS).
Specifically, ITS 3.7.9, ``Nuclear Services Seawater System'' and ITS
3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating (Emergency Diesel Generator)'' notes are
removed. These changes are administrative in nature and do not alter
any operating license requirements.
Date of issuance: September 6, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 220.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 3, 2004 (69 FR
46585).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 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: September 21, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated March 18, April 7, May 6, and August 10,
2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments the 69 kV offsite
power circuit limiting conditions for operation action statements. Add
a license condition to extend the required action completion time for
an inoperable alternate offsite power source (69 kV circuit) from the
current 72 hours to 14 days on a one-time basis.
Date of issuance: September 9, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 289, 271.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 26, 2004 (69 FR
62476)
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments: September 27, 2004, as
supplemented by letter dated August 2, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
[[Page 56507]]
Specifications (TSs) related to the reactor coolant pump flywheel
inspection program by increasing the inspection interval to 20 years.
Date of issuance: September 9, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 265 and 247.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments
revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2005 (70 FR
15945). The licensee's supplement dated August 2, 2005, did not change
the scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice
of proposed action published in the Federal Register, and did not
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 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: August 26, 2004, as
supplemented by letter dated July 18, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
following Technical Specifications (TSs): TS 4.2.1, ``Fuel
Assemblies,'' adds reference to ZIRLO\TM\ clad fuel and filler rods;
and TS 5.7.1.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' adds the
following references to the list of analytical methods used to
determine the core operating limits: ``Calculative Methods for the CE
Nuclear Power Large Break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] Evaluation
Model,'' CENPD-132, Supplement 4-P-A, August 2000, and ``Implementation
of ZIRLO\TM\ Cladding Material in CE Nuclear Power Fuel Assembly
Designs,'' CENPD-404-P-A, November 2001. These changes were requested
to implement ZIRLO\TM\ fuel rod cladding material into the fuel design
for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3.
Date of issuance: September 14, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-199; Unit 3-190.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 28, 2004 (69
FR 57991).
The supplemental letter dated July 18, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendments: April 27, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
applicability of Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.3, Functional Unit
18.A, ``Turbine Trip, Low Fluid Oil Pressure,'' and TS Functional Unit
18.B, ``Turbine Trip, Turbine Stop Valve Closure,'' by altering Table
3.3-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' and Table 4.3-1,
``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements.'' The
change adds a footnote that indicates that the Mode 1 applicability is
limited to operation above the P-9 (50 percent rated thermal power)
interlock setpoint value. Additionally, the action for an inoperable
turbine stop valve closure channel is revised to be consistent with the
design of this function. Finally, an option is added to permit a
reduction in thermal power to below the P-9 interlock within 10 hours
for an inoperable turbine stop valve closure channel.
Date of issuance: September 2, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 304 and 294.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR
38722).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 2, 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
[[Page 56508]]
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, 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
[[Page 56509]]
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).
Energy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 21, 2005, as supplemented by
letters dated August 4 and August 26, 2005. The supplemental letters
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
Description of amendment request: To incorporate new Arkansas
Nuclear One, Unit 2, Technical Specifications in support of dry cask
loading operations in the spent fuel pool. The amendment ensures
subcritical conditions are maintained in the spent fuel pool during dry
cask loading operations by relying on realistically conservative fuel
burnup credit.
Date of issuance: September 6, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 261.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes (70 FR 48196, published August 16, 2005). The
notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's
proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received. The notice
also provided an opportunity to request a hearing by November 4, 2005,
but indicated that if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination,
any such hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 6, 2005.
Attorney for licensee: Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Section Chief: David Terao.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th 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. 05-19028 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P