[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39081-39089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 June 21, 2007 to July 3, 2007. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36520).
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
[[Page 39082]]
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, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave
to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
[[Page 39083]]
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].
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify the Technical Specifications (TS) by removing the specific
isolation time for the main steam isolation valves from the associated
TS Surveillance Requirements (SRs) and by replacing it with the
requirement to verify the valve isolation time is within limits. The
changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-491,
Removal of the Main Steam and Main Feedwater Valve Isolation Time from
Technical Specifications, Revision 2. The proposed amendments deviate
from TSTF-491 in that the current PINGP TS and associated SRs for the
main feedwater isolation valves do not include valve closure times, and
thus these changes in TSTF-491 are not applicable to the PINGP TSs and
are not adopted.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58884), on possible
amendments concerning the consolidation line item improvement process
(CLIIP), including a model safety evaluation and a model no significant
hazards consideration determination. The NRC staff subsequently issued
a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license
amendment applications in the Federal Register on December 29, 2006 (71
FR 78472) as part of the CLIIP. In its application dated May 10, 2007,
the licensee affirmed the applicability of the following determination.
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 relocating main steam and main
feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change
Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main
feedwater valves isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time
with the phrase, within limits.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valve times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of
these isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future changes to the
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, test and experiments, to
ensure that such changes do not result in more than minimal increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any 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 changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phrase ``within limits.'' The changes do
not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TS
continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation
valves.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phrase ``within limits.'' Instituting
the proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main
steam and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or
license controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR
50.59. This approach provides an effective level of regulatory
control and ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve
testing is conducted such that there is no significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is
unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls
to preserve the current margins of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President,
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street,
Hudson, WI 54016.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
[[Page 39084]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.3.1, Administrative
controls, to (1) Improve administrative flexibility and clarity in the
wording of the specification and (2) replace a specific position title
with a generic position title for the senior individual in charge of
health physics.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to Technical Specifications Administrative
Controls Section 5.3.1 involves the use of a more generic
designation for the unit staff position responsible for Health
Physics without reducing the level of authority required for that
position. The proposed change also allows the flexibility to use an
accredited program for qualifying personnel to fill unit staff
positions, which represents an acceptable alternative to the
qualification requirements for these positions as currently
specified in the Technical Specifications. Since the proposed
changes are administrative in nature, they do not involve any
physical changes to any structures, systems, or components, nor will
their performance requirements be altered. The proposed changes also
do not affect the operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant.
Therefore, the response of the plant to previously analyzed
accidents will not be affected. Consequently, the proposed changes
do not involve a significant increase or any 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 previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will have
no adverse impact on the overall qualification of the unit staff.
The use of a more generic designation for the unit staff position
responsible for Health Physics and the alternative use of an
accredited program that has been endorsed by the NRC will ensure the
educational requirements and power plant experience for each unit
staff position are properly satisfied and will continue to fulfill
applicable regulatory requirements. Also, since no change is being
made to the design, operation, maintenance, or testing of the plant,
no new methods of operation or failure modes are introduced by the
proposed changes. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant decrease in
the margin of safety?
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will have
no adverse impact on the onsite organizational features necessary to
assure safe operation of the plant. Lines of authority for plant
operation are unaffected by the proposed changes. Also, the adoption
of the more generic designation of the individual responsible for
Health Physics will reduce the regulatory burden of having to devote
limited resources to process a license amendment whenever a title
change for this position is implemented. Accordingly, this reduction
in regulatory burden and the option to use an accredited program
endorsed by NRC to qualify the unit staff will improve plant
efficiency without compromising plant safety. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant decrease in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 5 and June 11, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, Control Rod Scram Times,
using the consolidated line-term improvement process. These changes are
based on TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-460, that has been
approved generically for the boiling water reactor (BWR) Standard TS,
NUREG-1433 (BWR/4). The frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2,
control rod scram time testing, is revised from ``120 days cumulative
operation in MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Federal Register on August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51854). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its
application and supplement dated June 5 and June 11, 2007.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency
of surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not
affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as
the tested component is still required to be operable. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed
change does not result in any new or different modes of plant
operation. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control
rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1
operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed
change continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the
assumptions in the safety analysis are protected. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change increases the
[[Page 39085]]
maximum Technical Specification (TS) service water (SW) temperature
limit from 95 [deg]F to 100 [deg]F, and revises the TS Figure 3.8-1,
which provides allowable containment air partial pressure versus SW
temperature.
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?
Operating with increased maximum service water temperature
limits does not affect the frequency of accident initiating events.
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously analyzed is not
increased. Plant systems supported by SW have been evaluated for
operation with a service water temperature limit of 100 [deg]F, and
it determined that there is no operational impact when operating at
the higher SW temperature.
Although the service water temperature limit is being increased,
the containment will continue to meet its design basis acceptance
criteria following a large-break loss of coolant accident as
identified in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
Therefore, there is no increase in the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated resulting from operation of Surry Units 1 and 2
with an increased service water temperature limit.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
There are no new failure modes or mechanisms associated with
operating Surry Units 1 and 2 with an increased service water
temperature limit of 100 [deg]F. As noted above, the increased
service water temperature limit does not affect plant operation,
since plant systems supported by SW have been evaluated for
operation with a SW temperature limit of 100 [deg]F and no
operational impact was identified. Therefore, there are no new or
different kinds of accidents created by operation of Surry Units 1
and 2 with increased service water temperature limits.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
The containment analysis acceptance criteria continue to be met
when operating with the proposed increased maximum service water
temperature limit. Containment integrity will not be challenged and
will continue to meet its design basis acceptance criteria following
a large break loss of coolant accident. Therefore, the existing
margin of safety is not significantly reduced by operation of Surry
Units 1 and 2 with increased service water temperature limits.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Millstone Power Station, Building
475, 5th Floor, Rope Ferry Road, Rt. 156, Waterford, Connecticut 06385.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
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 51.22(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. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: September 15, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated February 26, May 22, and June 5, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Section 6.8.5, ``Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to allow a one-time deferral of the next Type A, containment
integrated leak rate test from ``no later than September 2008'' to
``prior to startup from T1R18 refueling outage. The T1R18 refueling
outage will begin no later than November 1, 2009.''
Date of issuance: June 29, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No. 259.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (71
FR 75989).
The supplements dated February 26, May 22, and June 5, 2007
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2006.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the
containment design pressure requirements in Surveillance Requirements
3.6.8 and 5.5.16 due to a revision in the loss-of-coolant accident
containment pressure analysis.
Date of issuance: June 15, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
[[Page 39086]]
Amendment No. 215.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revises
the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2006 (71 FR
51225).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated June 15, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: June 5, 2006 as supplemented
April 4, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,''
surveillance requirement (SR) 3.8.1.13. The changes revised TS SR
3.8.1.13 and its associated Bases to state that the SR only verifies
that non-emergency diesel generator (DG) trips are bypassed. The
licensee stated that this change is based upon and consistent with
Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF), Standard TS
Traveler, TSTF-400-A, Revision 1, ``Clarify Surveillance Requirement on
Bypass of DG Automatic Trips.''
Date of issuance: June 25, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 236, 232.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2006 (71 FR
70555).
The supplement dated April 4, 2007, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station,Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: June 5, 2006, as supplemented
April 4, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised TS 3.8.1,
``AC Sources--Operating,'' surveillance requirement (SR) 3.8.1.13. The
changes revise the SR 3.8.1.13 and its associated Bases to state that
the SR only verifies that non-emergency diesel generator (DG) trips are
bypassed. The licensee stated that this change is based upon and
consistent with Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF),
Standard TS Traveler, TSTF-400-A, Revision 1, ``Clarify Surveillance
Requirement on Bypass of DG Automatic Trips.''
Date of issuance: June 25, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 242, 223.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2006 (71 FR
70555).
The supplement dated April 4, 2007, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: February 15, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.10.1, ``Inservice Leak and
Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' to expand its scope to include
provisions for temperature excursions greater than 212 [deg]F as a
consequence of inservice leak or hydrostatic testing, and to allow
performance of control rod scram time testing and other required
testing when initiated in conjunction with the performance of an
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational
conditions to be in Mode 4. The changes are consistent with NRC
approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-484,
``Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing Activities.''
Date of issuance: June 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 288.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR
17947).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: March 15, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.2.1.d to require verification that
containment spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance that
could result in nozzle blockage, in lieu of the current SR of
performing the test every 5 years.
Date of issuance: July 2, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 272.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR
20381).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 2, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: June 2, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated August 18, 2006, October 5, 2006, and January 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise technical
specification to increase the allowable as-found main steam safety
valve code safety function lift setpoint tolerance from 1
percent to 3 percent to align Dresden Nuclear Power
Station, Units 2 and 3, with the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants
and reduce the number of non-safety significant Licensee Event Reports
written due to TS violations caused by setpoint drifting.
Date of issuance: June 21, 2007.
[[Page 39087]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 223 and 215.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR
46929).
The August 18, 2006, October 5, 2006, and January 11, 2007,
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 21, 2007.
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: March 16, 2006, as supplemented
by letter dated April 6, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise allowable
values for four reactor core isolation cooling leak detection functions
in Technical Specification Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment
Isolation Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: June 29, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 182/169.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR
46929).
The April 6, 2007 supplement, 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 29, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: December 29, 2006.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
technical specifications requirements for scram discharge volume vent
and drain valves.
Date of issuance: June 22, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 145.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR
11388).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 22, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2006, as supplemented
by letter dated March 20, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.3.1 to
eliminate the requirement for the Containment Atmospheric Dilution
system, allowing its removal from the Duane Arnold Energy Center. In a
letter dated June 1, 2007, the licensee withdrew its request to change
LCO 3.6.3.2, ``Primary Containment oxygen Concentration,'' to lengthen
the duration of time for the primary containment to be de-inerted.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 265.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revises the
Technical Specification.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (71
FR 67395).
The supplemental information provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: July 6, 2006, as supplemented
by letters dated September 15 and December 26, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments incorporate new
Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LBLOCA) analyses using the
realistic LBLOCA methodology in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approved WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large Break LOCA Evaluation
Methodology using Automated Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method
(ASTRUM)'' and revise TS 5.6.5.b to include reference to WCAP-16009-P-
A.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
with the next fuel cycle (Unit 1 Cycle 25) commencing following the
Winter 2008 refueling for Unit 1, and implemented within 90 days for
Unit 2.
Amendment Nos.: 179 and 169.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 12, 2006 (71
FR 53718).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2007.
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: December 29, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Section 5.5.8, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' in
order to update references to the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically, the change
adopted the administrative, editorial, and clarification TS changes
contained in TS Task Force (TSTF)-479, Revision 0, ``Changes to Reflect
Revision of 10 CFR [Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations]
50.55a,'' and TSTF-497, Revision 0, ``Limit Inservice Testing Program
SR [Surveillance Requirement] 3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2
years or less.''
Date of issuance: June 25, 2007.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-196; Unit 2-197
[[Page 39088]]
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72
FR 6784).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72
FR 6784).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2007.
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: December 29, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise TS 5.5.16,
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code
Class CC.
Date of issuance: June 26, 2007.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-197; Unit 2-198.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72
FR 6785).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments: January 30, 2007, as
supplemented April 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised staff
position duties and titles in Sections 2 and 5 of the Technical
Specifications.
Date of issuance: June 7, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 252, 196.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72
FR 6790).
The supplement dated April 11, 2007, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: January 30, 2007, as
supplemented April 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised staff
position duties and titles in Sections 2 and 5 of the Technical
Specifications.
Date of issuance: June 12, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 148, 128.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (72
FR 6791).
The supplement dated April 11, 2007, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2007.
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: March 30, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated October 2, 2006, and February 26, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise TS 3.3.3.6,
``Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required
action for inoperable wide range reactor coolant temperature, wide
range steam generator water level, and auxiliary feedwater flow
instruments.
Date of issuance: June 13, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-177; Unit 2-164.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2006 (71 FR
32608). The supplemental letters dated October 2, 2006, and February
26, 2007, 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 June 13, 2007.
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: April 4, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment request changed the
name of one licensee, Texas Genco, LP (Texas Genco), to NRG South Texas
LP. The name change results from the purchase of Texas Genco's parent
company by NRG Energy, Inc. as approved by the NRC in January 2006.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-178; Unit 2-165.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 9, 2007 (72 FR
26428).
[[Page 39089]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this sixth day of July 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-13537 Filed 7-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P