[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38180-38189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5899]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 38181]]
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 June 9, 2006 to June 22, 2006. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 20, 2006 (71 FR 35456).
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 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
[[Page 38182]]
when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective,
notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take
place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
FPL Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: April 28, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Seabrook Station Unit No. 1 (Seabrook) Technical
Specifications (TSs) consistent with the NRC-approved Revision 9 to
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-359, ``Increased Flexibility in
MODE Restraints.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475), on possible
amendments adopting TSTF-359, 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 April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16579). The licensee affirmed the applicability
of the following NSHC determination in its application dated April 28,
2006.
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 allows entry into a mode or other specified
condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
statement and the associated required actions [are] not an initiator
of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as
allowed by [the] proposed LCO [limiting condition of operation]
3.0.4 are no different than the consequences of an accident while
entering and relying on the required actions while starting in a
condition of applicability of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by
this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the
risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible
concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2-- The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve the physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the
applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the
associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new
failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change
does not create the possibility of a new of different kind of
accident from an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3-- The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified
condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS
allow operation of the plant without the full compliment of
equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS Limiting
Conditions for Operation (LCO). The risk associated with this
allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must
be performed within the prescribed times. The net effect of being in
a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered
significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions
or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS
conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and
completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is
predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and
the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current
allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in
similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The new
change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above 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: M. S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-315, D. C. Cook Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: May 30, 2006.
[[Page 38183]]
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications, deleting from Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.15 a note which specifies that the surveillance
includes ``verification of Reactor Coolant System [RCS] resistance
temperature detector [RTD] bypass loop flow rate.'' Approval of this
proposed amendment would permit the licensee to effect a plant design
change, removing the RTD bypass piping and install a replacement system
using fast response thermowell-mounted RTDs located in the RCS loop
piping.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided a
no significant hazards determination analysis.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and performed
its own as follows:
(1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The RTD bypass system is the passive hardware associated
with RCS instrumentation with control and indication functions. The
RTD bypass system was not considered a precursor to any previously
analyzed accident, and was not considered a factor in the scenario
leading to accident consequences. The new system replacing the RTD
bypass system will perform the same control and indication
functions, and similarly will not be considered a precursor to any
accident, or a factor affecting accident consequences in previously
analyzed accident scenarios. Therefore, replacement of the existing
RTD bypass system with the new system will not increase the
probability of occurrence of an accident, and will not increase
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?
No. The replacement of the existing RTD bypass with the
replacement system would not create new failure modes, and the
replacement system is not an initiator of any new or different kind
of accident. The proposed deletion of the note in SR 3.3.1.15 does
not affect the interaction of the replacement system with any system
whose failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. 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?
No. Margins of safety are established in the design of
components, the configuration of components to meet certain
performance parameters, and in the models and associated assumptions
used to analysis the system's performance. The replacement system
will continue to perform the same temperature detection function to
the same level of reliability as defined in the D.C. Cook Updated
Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff evaluated the licensee's analysis, and based on this
evaluation, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested
amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire, One Cook
Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
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 amendment request: May 26, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend
each unit's Technical Specifications in accordance with Revision 4 to
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change
Traveller, TSTF-449, ``Steam Generator Tube Integrity'' (see 70 FR
24126). Specifically, the following Sections will be revised per TSTF-
449: Section 1.1, Definitions; Section 3.4.13, Reactor Coolant System
Operational LEAKAGE; Section 5.5.7, Steam Generator (SG) Program; and
Section 5.6.7, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report. Also, a new
Section 3.4.17, SG Tube Integrity, will be added. The proposed changes
are necessary in order to implement the guidance for the industry
initiative in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 97-06, Steam Generator
Program Guidelines.
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, by referencing the NRC staff's model analysis published
in 70 FR 10298 (March 2, 2005). The NRC staff's model analysis is
reproduced 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 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 MSLB [main steam line
break], 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 1-131 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 1-131 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 [150] gallons per
day in any one SG, and that the reactor coolant activity levels of
DOSE EQUIVALENT 1-131 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.
[[Page 38184]]
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 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.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire, One Cook
Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 7, 2006, and as supplemented by
letter dated May 10, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing
Program,'' by replacing references to Section XI of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
with ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants
(OM Code). Section 50.55a of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) requires that the Inservice Testing (IST) Program
be updated to the latest Edition and Addenda of the ASME OM Code
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a(b) 12 months before the
start of the 10-year interval. Section XI of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code has been replaced with the ASME OM Code as the
code of reference for IST programs. Thus, the ASME OM Code is the code
of reference for the IST Program for the next 10-year interval that
began March 1, 2006. In addition, the scope of frequencies specified to
be within the applicability of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 is
expanded by adding mention of other normal and accelerated frequencies
specified in the IST Program. This will eliminate any confusion
regarding the applicability of SR 3.0.2 to IST Program Frequencies.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the CNS [Cooper Nuclear Station] TS
for the IST Program to be consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are classified as ASME Code
Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3. The proposed changes incorporate
revisions to the ASME Code that result in a net improvement in the
measures for testing pumps and valves.
The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators,
analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events. They do not involve addition or removal of any equipment,
nor any design changes to the facility.
Based on the above, NPPD [Nebraska Public Power District]
concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the CNS TS for the IST Program to be
consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps
and valves which are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and
Class 3. The proposed changes incorporate revisions to the ASME Code
that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps
and valves.
The proposed changes do not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed changes will not introduce a new accident
initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. There is no
change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that
may be released off-site, and there is no increase in individual or
cumulative occupational exposure.
Based on the above NPPD concludes that these proposed changes do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the CNS TS for the IST Program to be
consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps
and valves which are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and
Class 3. The proposed changes incorporate revisions to the ASME Code
that result in a net improvement in the measures for testing pumps
and valves.
The safety function of the affected pumps and valves will be
maintained. Based on the above, NPPD concludes that these proposed
changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
[[Page 38185]]
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: April 25, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements for mode change
limitations in TSs 3.0.4 and 4.0.4, using the CLIIP described in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) change, TSTF-359, Revision 9.
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change allows entry into a MODE while relying on
ACTIONS. Being in an ACTION is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on ACTIONS as allowed by
the proposed LCO [limiting condition of operation] 3.0.4 are no
different than the consequences of an accident while relying on
ACTIONS for other reasons, such as equipment inoperability.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, this 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?
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
there is no change to the design basis.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed change allows entry into a MODE or other specified
conditions in the Applicability while relying on ACTIONS. The
Technical Specifications allow operation of the plant without a full
complement of equipment. The risk associated with this allowance is
managed by the imposition of ACTIONS and Completion Times. The net
effect of ACTIONS and Completion Times on the margin of safety is
not considered significant. The proposed change does not change the
ACTIONS or Completion Times of the Technical Specifications. The
proposed change allows the ACTIONS and Completion Times to be used
in new circumstances. However, this use is predicated on an
assessment that focuses on managing plant risk. In addition, most
current allowances to utilize the ACTIONS and Completion Times that
do not require risk assessment are eliminated. As a result, the net
change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business
Unit-N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment requests: February 28, 2006.
This revised amendment request completely supercedes the licensee's
submittal of December 17, 2004. Likewise, the biweekly Federal Register
(FR) notice--notice of consideration of issuance of amendments to
facility operating licenses, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing, which was
published in the FR on January 18, 2005 (70 FR 2897) is being
superceded by the publication of this biweekly FR notice.
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendment revises
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.8.1, ``AC [alternating current]
Sources--Operating,'' 3.8.4, ``DC [direct current] Sources--
Operating,'' 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown,'' 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell
Parameters,'' 3.8.7, ``Inverters--Operating,'' and 3.8.9,
``Distribution Systems--Operating.'' This change will also add a new
Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program, Section 5.5.2.16.
The proposed TS changes will provide operational flexibility
supported by DC electrical subsystem design upgrades that are in
progress. These upgrades will provide increased capacity batteries,
additional battery chargers, and the means to cross-connect DC
subsystems while meeting all design battery loading requirements. With
these modifications in place, it will be feasible to perform routine
surveillances as well as battery replacements online.
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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Technical Specifications (TS) 3.8.4 and
3.8.6 would allow extension of the Completion Time (CT) for
inoperable Direct Current (DC) distribution subsystems to manually
cross-connect DC distribution buses of the same safety train of the
operating unit for a period of 30 days. Currently the CT only allows
for 2 hours to ascertain the source of the problem before a
controlled shutdown is initiated. Loss of a DC subsystem is not an
initiator of an event. However, complete loss of a Train A
(subsystems A and C) or Train B (subsystems B and D) DC system would
initiate a plant transient/plant trip.
Operation of a DC Train in cross-connected configuration does
not affect the quality of DC control and motive power to any system.
Therefore, allowing the cross-connect of DC distribution systems
does not significantly increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated in Chapter 15 of the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR).
The above conclusion is supported by Probabilistic Risk
Assessment (PRA) evaluation which encompasses all accidents,
including UFSAR Chapter 15.
Modification to the Frequency for Surveillance Requirements in
TS 3.8.4, 3.8.5, and 3.8.6 are consistent with previously described
recommendations. Enhancements from TSTF-360, Rev. 1 and IEEE 450-
2002 have been incorporated into Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCOs) 3.8.4, 3.8.5, and 3.8.6. These changes do not impact the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further changes are made of an editorial nature or provide
clarification only. For example, discussions regarding electrical
`Trains' and `Subsystems' will be in more conventional terminology.
LCOs affected by editorial changes include 3.8.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.5,
3.8.6, 3.8.7, and 3.8.9.
The changes being proposed in the TS do not affect assumptions
contained in other safety analyses or the physical design of the
plant, nor do they affect other Technical Specifications that
preserve safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change create the possibility of new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies surveillances and LCOs for
batteries and chargers to meet the requirements of IEEE
[[Page 38186]]
450-2002 whose intent is to maintain the same equipment capability
as previously assumed in our commitment to IEEE 450-1980.
The proposed change will allow the cross-tie of DC subsystems
and allow extension of the CT for an inoperable subsystem to 30
days. Failure of the crosstied DC buses and/or associated
battery(ies) is bounded by existing evaluations for the failure of
an entire electrical train.
Swing battery chargers are added to increase the overall DC
system reliability. Administrative and mechanical controls will be
in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC systems
continue to meet the UFSAR design basis.
LCOs 3.8.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, and 3.8.9 revisions are
editorial clarifications and do not affect plant design.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change will not create the possibility of new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
Changes in accordance with IEEE 450-2002 and TSTF-360, Rev. 1
maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the UFSAR
and the current Technical Specifications.
Swing battery chargers are added to increase the overall DC
system reliability. Administrative and mechanical controls will be
in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC systems
continue to meet the UFSAR design basis.
The addition of the DC cross-tie capability proposed for LCO
3.8.4 has been evaluated, as described previously, using PRA and
determined to be of acceptable risk as long as the duration while
cross-tied is limited to 30 days. An LCO has been included as part
of this proposed change to ensure that plant operation, with DC
buses cross-tied, will not exceed 30 days.
All remaining changes are editorial.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
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 Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments: March 1, 2006, supplemented
April 26, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to reconcile the criticality requirements of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, and 10
CFR part 72 for loading and unloading dry spent fuel pool canisters in
the spent fuel pool.
Date of Issuance: June 15, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 351/353/352.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (71 FR
18373).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 15, 2006.
The supplement dated April 26, 2006, provided clarifying
information that did not change the scope of the original application
and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: April 22, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the
surveillance requirements (SRs) for Technical Specification 3.3.5,
``Loss of Power (LOP) Diesel Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation.''
Specifically, a note was added to IP2 SR 3.3.5.2 to indicate that the
verification of the setpoint is not required for the 480 volt (V) bus
degraded voltage function when performing the trip actuating device
operational test. A similar note was added to IP3 SR 3.3.5.1 for the
480 V degraded voltage and undervoltage functions.
Date of issuance: June 7, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment No.: 247 and 231.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2005 (70 FR
33213).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 38187]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: April 30, 2004, as supplemented
by letters dated December 17, 2004; June 30, 2004; July 5, 2005;
September 30, 2005; and June 1, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.1.3, ``Oscillation Power Range Monitor (OPRM)
Instrumentation''; TS 3.4.1, ``Recirculation Loops Operating''; and TS
5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)''; to insert a new TS
section for the ORPM instrumentation, delete the current thermal-
hydraulic instability administrative requirements, and add the
appropriate references for the OPRM trip setpoints and methodology.
Date of issuance: June 13, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 150 days.
Amendment Nos.: 177/163.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 8, 2004 (69 FR
32073).
The December 17, 2004; June 30, 2004; July 5, 2005; September 30,
2005; and June 1, 2006, supplements contained clarifying information
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: February 25, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted the
sections of the Facility Operating Licenses that require reporting of
violations of the requirements in Sections 2.C and 2.E of the Facility
Operating Licenses.
Date of issuance: June 14, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 178/164.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR
21456).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plants, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: April 21, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) to adopt seven TS Task Force (TSTF) generic
changes (TSTF nos. 5, 65, 101, 258, 299, 308, and 361) that delete
redundant safety limit violation notification requirements; adopt use
of generic titles for utility positions; change the auxiliary feedwater
pump test requirements to be consistent with the inservice test
program; remove redundant requirements and add other requirements to
Section 5.0, Administrative Controls; clarify the meaning of
``refueling cycle'' for system integrated leak test intervals in the
Primary Coolant Sources Outside Containment program; clarify the
requirements regarding the frequency of testing for cumulative and
projected dose contributions from radioactive effluents; and add a note
to the residual heat removal (RHR) requirements during Mode 6 low water
level operations that allows one required RHR loop to be inoperable for
up to 2 hours for surveillance testing provided the other RHR loop is
operable and in operation.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos: 199 and 146.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2005 (70 FR
38720).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company (NMC), LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301,
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments: November 12, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated January 30 and March 6, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification 5.5.7, ``Inservice Testing Program'' to update the
references to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code and
certain associated periodicities for inservice testing activities,
consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a.
Date of issuance: June 8, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 222 and 228.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revise the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (71 FR
2592).
The January 30, 2006, supplement withdrew a portion of the original
request and the March 6, 2006, supplement contained clarifying
information.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2006.
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
[[Page 38188]]
of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a
reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best
efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the
public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the
comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the
licensee has been informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license and any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in
the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition
for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave
to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules
of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, 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.
[[Page 38189]]
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
FPL Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: June 7, 2006, as supplemented by letters
dated June 8, and June 9, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.5.1, ``Containment Enclosure Emergency Air
Cleanup Systems,'' to increase the TS allowed outage time with one
inoperable enclosure air handling fan EAH-FN-31B from 7 days to 14
days, on a one-time basis.
Date of issuance: June 9, 2006.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the expiration of the current 7-day allowed outage time
entered on June 4, 2006, for fan EAH-FN-31B.
Amendment No.: 111.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
June 9, 2006.
Attorney for licensee: M. S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of June 26, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 06-5899 Filed 7-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P