[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70641-70646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22795]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 October 28, 2005, to November 9, 2005. The
last biweekly notice was published on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67744).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene
is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the
[[Page 70642]]
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 e-mail to [email protected].
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 14, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3/4.8.2.3, ``D.C. [direct current]
Distribution--Operating'' and 3/4.8.2.4, ``D.C. Distribution--
Shutdown,'' to permit implementation of design changes associated with
a battery charger 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.
Failure of the components associated with the proposed change
(i.e., battery chargers and Uninterruptible Power Supply [UPS]
rectifiers) would not initiate any of the accidents described in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. No design function is being
changed, and there is no adverse impact on the probability or
consequences of accidents described in the safety analyses.
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.
Failure modes associated with the rectifiers are reduced by the
addition of battery chargers. A rectifier failure in the original
design would result in a loss of battery charging and vital-bus load
carrying functions. As a result of the modification, a dedicated
battery charger will eliminate the battery charging design function
loss upon failure of a rectifier. The failure mode for the new
battery charger will be limited to a failure mode previously
associated with the rectifiers. No new failure modes are associated
with the new battery chargers.
No new failure modes are created by the proposed change;
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 modification does not reduce the margin of safety. Vital and
DC bus support functions are unaffected. The system will still
consist of rectifier and inverter units to provide AC power to the
associated vital buses and units that charge the bus batteries and
carry the associated DC bus loads. The only difference is that the
Nos. 2-3 and 2-4 UPS unit rectifiers will no longer perform both of
these functions. Separate battery charger units will charge the bus
batteries and carry the DC loads. The new arrangement for DC buses
2-3 and 2-4 will match the existing arrangement of DC buses 2-1 and
2-2, insofar as the modification will result in all four instrument
buses having separate UPS rectifier assemblies and battery charger
devices. Dedicated bus 2-3 and 2-4 charges should increase system
reliability.
[[Page 70643]]
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 O'Reilly, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH
44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2005.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) to adopt NRC-approved Revision 4 to
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-449, ``Steam Generator Tube
Integrity.'' The proposed amendment includes changes to the TS
definition of Leakage, TS 3.4.6.2, ``Reactor Coolant System,
Operational Leakage,'' TS 3.4.5, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube
Integrity,'' and adds TS 6.8.k, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and
TS 6.9.1.16, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' The proposed
changes are necessary in order to implement the guidance for the
industry initiative on NEI 97-06, ``Steam Generator Program
Guidelines.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), on possible amendments
adopting TSTF-449, including a model safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the
consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently
issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on May 6, 2005
(70 FR 24126). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the following
NSHC determination in its application dated August 31, 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:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change requires a SG Program that includes
performance criteria that will provide reasonable assurance that the
SG tubing will retain integrity over the full range of operating
conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot
standby, cooldown and all anticipated transients included in the
design specification). The SG performance criteria are based on tube
structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational
LEAKAGE.
A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of the design
basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing
basis. In the analysis of a SGTR event, a bounding primary to
secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits
in the licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a
double-ended rupture of a single tube is assumed.
For other design basis accidents such as a main steamline break
(MSLB), rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the
tubes are assumed to retain their structural integrity (i.e., they
are assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that
primary to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or
increases to 1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced
stresses. The accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the
proposed changes accounts for tubes that may leak during design
basis accidents. The accident induced leakage criterion limits this
leakage to no more than the value assumed in the accident analysis.
The SG performance criteria proposed change to the TS identify
the standards against which tube integrity is to be measured.
Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that
the SG tubing will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety
function of maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity
throughout each operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a
design basis accident. The performance criteria are only a part of
the SG Program required by the proposed change to the TS. The
program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam Generator Program Guidelines,
includes a framework that incorporates a balance of prevention,
inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage monitoring. The proposed
changes do not, therefore, significantly increase the probability of
an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of design basis accidents are, in part,
functions of the DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in the primary coolant and
the primary to secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident.
Therefore, limits are included in the plant technical specifications
for operational leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in primary
coolant to ensure the plant is operated within its analyzed
condition. The typical analysis of the limiting design basis
accident assumes that primary to secondary leak rate after the
accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than [500 gallons per
day or 720 gallons per day] in any one SG, and that the reactor
coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 are at the TS
values before the accident.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their
method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The
proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the
requirements for SG inspections. The proposed change does not
adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis
accident and is an improvement over the current TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences
of a SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is
reduced. In addition, the proposed changes do not affect the
consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump
locked rotor event, or other previously evaluated accident.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement
over the requirements imposed by the current technical
specifications. Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not
introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or
postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The
result of the implementation of the SG Program will be an
enhancement of SG tube performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE
that may be experienced during all plant conditions will be
monitored to ensure it remains within current accident analysis
assumptions.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their
method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry
controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other
plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection
requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes
isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from
the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG is
maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design,
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The
proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube
integrity by implementing the SG
[[Page 70644]]
Program to manage SG tube inspection, assessment, repair, and
plugging. The requirements established by the SG Program are
consistent with those in the applicable design codes and standards
and are an improvement over the requirements in the current TSs.
For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and
overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the
TS.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments 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 Branch Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.
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].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: May 20, 2004, as supplemented
May 23 and September 30, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to support the implementation of 24-month fuel
cycles at Clinton Power Station, Unit 1.
Date of issuance: October 24, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 169.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 6, 2004 (69 FR
40669). The supplements dated May 23 and September 30, 2005, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: August 18, 2004, as supplemented
May 13 and 25, June 14, August 17, and October 24 and 25, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' to reflect the increased
spent fuel storage capacity at Clinton Power Station, Unit 1.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 170.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2005 (70 FR
51093). In the supplement dated June 14, 2005, the licensee changed the
use of the building crane and the temporary crane. This change may have
impacted the staff''s original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination published on December 29, 2004 (69 FR
78051). Therefore a revised no significant hazards consideration
determination was published on August 29, 2005. However, the
supplements dated October 24 and 25, 2005, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269 and 50-270, Oconee Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments: August 18, 2005, as supplemented
by letter dated September 15, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications 3.5.2.6 and 3.5.3.6 to accommodate the
replacement of the reactor building emergency sump suction inlet trash
racks and screens with strainers.
Date of issuance: November 1, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 348/350.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38 and DPR-47:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 31, 2005 (70 FR
51852). The supplement dated September 15, 2005, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 1, 2005.
[[Page 70645]]
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
Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,
Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: November 4, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated March 8, May 25 and July 8, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises TS Section
3.4.9, ``Reactor Coolant System Pressure and Temperature (P/T)
Limits.'' The changes revise the P/T limit curves for 54 effective full
power years (EFPY) to support an additional 20 years of operation under
the renewed license and resolve a non-conservative condition for TS
3.4.9, Figure 3.4.9-2, ``Non-Nuclear Heatup/Cooldown Curve,'' for Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station.
Date of issuance: October 17, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 217, 209, 228, 223.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and DPR-30.
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 1, 2005 (70 FR
5244). The supplements dated March 8, May 25 and July 8, 2005, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 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: January 27, 2005, as
supplemented by letters dated August 12, September 9, and October 21,
2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows 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 issuance: October 31, 2005.
Effective date: October 31, 2005.
Amendment No.: 222.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of notice in Federal Register: August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50424)
and Repeat Notice dated September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56505). The August
26, 2005, Notice revised the previous notice dated March 15, 2005 (70
FR 12746). The licensee's supplement dated August 12, 2005, revised the
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination and the
licensee's supplements dated September 9, and October 21, 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 proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published August 26, 2005, in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: March 11, 2005, and its
supplement dated August 25, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments allow use of the
steam generator tube W* (W-star) alternate repair criteria for
indications in the Westinghouse explosive tube expansion region on a
permanent basis.
Date of issuance: October 28, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to startup of Cycle 14.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-182; Unit 2-184.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR
21462).
The August 25, 2005, supplemental letter provided additional
clarifying information, 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 October 28, 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: February 3, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' Surveillance
Requirements 3.6.3.3 and 3.6.3.4 for Containment Isolation Valves and
Blind Flanges (CIVs), by adding a provision to exempt CIVs that are
locked, sealed, or otherwise secured from the position verification
requirements.
Date of issuance: November 3, 2005.
Effective date: November 3, 2005, to be implemented within 60 days
of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-201; Unit 3-192.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR
9996).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: June 2, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments change Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.6.1, ``Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection
Systems,'' to specifically require only one containment radioactivity
monitor (particulate channel) to be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Additionally, corresponding changes to the Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 4.4.6.1 and 4.4.6.2.1, ``Reactor Coolant System Operational
Leakage,'' were also made.
Date of issuance: October 17, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
[[Page 70646]]
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-174; Unit 2-162.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The 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 October 17, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: March 1, 2005, as supplemented
by letters dated June 16 and September 23, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: These amendments revise the
frequency for the trip actuating device operational test (TADOT) of the
P-4 interlock function. The proposed changes would revise the
surveillance requirement frequency in Technical Specification 3.3.2
from ``once per reactor trip breaker cycle'' to ``18 months'' for North
Anna, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: October 24, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 244/225.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR
21465).
The supplements dated June 16 and September 23, 2005, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: July 14, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: These amendments correct two errors
in the units of measure used to determine the Overtemperature [delta]T
Function Allowable Value.
Date of issuance: October 25, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 245/226.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2005 (70 FR
48208)
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 2005.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-22795 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P