[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62685-62696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21435]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from October 11, 2007, to October 24, 2007. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 23, 2007 (72 FR 60032).
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, 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 6D44, 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,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect
[[Page 62686]]
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 via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing
system 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 person(s) 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 hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/ requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC
[[Page 62687]]
technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800) 397-4209 or locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Non-timely 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 amendment 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].
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan Date of amendment request: July 12, 2007, as supplemented by
letter dated September 21, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.3.1.2 in Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.3.1, ``Post Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation.'' Specifically, the proposed amendment would delete
the note which excludes radiation detectors from calibration
requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Primary Containment Radiation Monitors are part of the post
accident monitoring instrumentation. Deleting the note excluding
radiation detectors from the channel calibration requirement in TS
3.3.3.1 surveillance requirement does not adversely affect any of
the parameters in accident analyses. Revising the detectors
calibration requirement does not affect the probability or
consequences of previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Deleting the note excluding the radiation detectors from channel
calibration requirement in SR 3.3.3.1.2 restores the calibration of
the primary containment high range radiation monitors to the
requirements in NUREG-0737 [,''Clarification of TMI Action Plan
Requirements''], Table II.F.1-3. The revision of the primary
containment high range radiation monitor calibration provides an
improved assurance of the accuracy and function of the monitor
during and following an accident. These monitors provide indication
of high-range radiation and are primarily used by emergency response
personnel for evaluating protective action recommendations. These
monitors are provided for indication only and do not initiate any
automatic action. Removing the exclusion of radiation detectors from
the channel calibration requirement in SR 3.3.3.1.2 cannot create a
new or different kind of accident from previously evaluated
accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
This proposed license amendment involves a change in the channel
calibration surveillance of primary containment high range radiation
monitor in TS 3.3.3.1. The surveillance frequency is unchanged. The
change in the high range radiation monitor channel calibration only
removes the exclusion of the detectors from SR 3.3.3.1.2. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David G. Pettinari, Legal Department, 688
WCB, Detroit Edison Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226-
1279.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant,
Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: August 21, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify technical specification (TS) requirements related to control
room envelope (CRE) habitability in TS 3.7.10, ``Control Room
Ventilation Filtration,'' and TS Section 5.5, ``Administrative
Controls--Programs and Manuals.'' The NRC staff issued a notice of
opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71
FR 61075), on possible amendments in accordance with TSTF-448-A,
Revision 3, to revise the plant specific TS to strengthen requirements
regarding CRE habitability by changing
[[Page 62688]]
the action and surveillance requirements for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, and by adding a new TS administrative controls
program on CRE habitability.
The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the
models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The licensee affirmed the
applicability of the following no significant hazards determination in
its application dated August 21, 2007.
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:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the
consequence analyses of design[-]basis accidents. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed 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 Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of
design[-]basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants.
No new or different accidents result from performing the new
surveillance or following the new program. The proposed change does
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be I installed) or a significant
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is
consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, this
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: October 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment changes
the containment sump buffering agent in Technical Specification (TS)
3.6.2.2, ``Trisodium Phosphate (TSP),'' from TSP to sodium tetraborate
(NaTB).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant
that could affect system, component, or accident functions as a
result of replacing trisodium phosphate (TSP) with sodium
tetraborate (NaTB). Buffering agents are used to minimize the
potential consequences of an accident and do not represent an
accident initiator. Utilizing NaTB as a buffering agent ensures the
post-loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) containment sump mixture will
have an equilibrium pH >= 7.0. Replacing TSP with NaTB, which
achieves comparable pH buffering results, will maintain the iodine
retention and corrosion inhibition required by the safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
Structures, systems, and components previously required for
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the TS. The proposed change has
no new adverse effects on safety-related systems or components and
does not challenge the performance or integrity of safety-related
systems. The replacement buffering agent has been evaluated and no
new accident scenarios or single failures are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The safety analyses assume a post-LOCA equilibrium pH >= 7.0 to
minimize iodine re-evolution and to minimize corrosion of components
within containment. Changing the containment sump buffering agent
requirement from TSP to NaTB and revising the required volume of
NaTB continues to ensure a containment sump equilibrium pH >= 7.0.
The margin for pH control is not altered by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
[[Page 62689]]
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications (TSs)
related to control room envelope (CRE) habitability consistent with
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-448,
Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety
evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination, and a model license amendment request in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). In its application dated
July 17, 2007, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model
NSHC determination, which is presented below.
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
change revises the TS for the CRE emergency ventilation system, which
is a mitigation system designed to minimize unfiltered air leakage into
the CRE and to filter the CRE atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants
in the event of accidents previously analyzed. An important part of the
CRE emergency ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify the
operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to assess
and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency ventilation
system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological consequences to
CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that the CRE emergency
ventilation system will perform as assumed in the consequence analyses
of design basis accidents. Thus, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The
proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The proposed
change does not alter the required mitigation capability of the CRE
emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during accident
conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of design basis
accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No new or
different accidents result from performing the new surveillance or
following the new program. The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter
any safety analysis assumptions and is consistent with current plant
operating practice. Therefore, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The proposed change does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does not
affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures.
The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition. 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: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: September 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the MNGP Technical Specifications (TS) by adding an Action
Statement to the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for
Specification 3.7.5, ``Control Room Ventilation System.'' The new
Action Statement will allow a finite time (72 hours) to restore one
control room ventilation subsystem to operable status when both
ventilation subsystems are inoperable, provided the control room
temperature is verified to be less than 90 degrees once every 4 hours.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the NRC's approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-477, Revision 3 (March 26, 2007;
72 FR 14143).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) by
referencing the NRC staff's model NSHC analysis published on December
18, 2006 (71 FR 75774). The NRC staff's model NSHC 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 is described in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-477[; it] adds an
action statement for two inoperable control room subsystems.
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 add an action statement for two inoperable
control room subsystems. The equipment qualification temperature of
the control room equipment is not affected. 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 a 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
[[Page 62690]]
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 add an action statement for two inoperable
control room subsystems. 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 pant
operation. The requirements in the TS continue to require
maintaining the control room temperature within the design limits.
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 add an action statement for two inoperable
control room subsystems. Instituting the proposed changes will
continue to maintain the control room temperature within design
limits. Changes to the Bases or licensee controlled document are
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an
effective level of regulatory control and ensures that the control
room temperature will be maintained within design limits.
The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve
the current margins of safety. Based upon the reasoning above, the
NRC staff concludes that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's referenced analysis, and
has found that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the proposed
amendment involves 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.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) safety limit (SL) requirements
related to the use of a non-cycle specific peak linear heat rate (PLHR)
SL of 22 kilowatts per foot (kW/ft) to fuel centerline melt. The
proposed change is consistent with the Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) 445-A, Revision 1. Because these Limiting Safety System
Setting (LSSS) values appear in the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS),
TS Bases section of TS 1.3, ``Limiting Safety System Settings, Reactor
Protective System,'' TS 1.0, ``Safety Limits and Limiting Safety System
Settings,'' will be revised to more clearly align with the Combustion
Engineering (CE) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 2.0 in
content. Therefore, TS Section 1.1, ``Safety Limits--Reactor Core,''
will be revised to incorporate the TSTF-445-A, Revision 1, peak fuel
centerline temperature (PFCT) criteria, and TS 1.2, ``Safety Limits--
Reactor Coolant System Pressure,'' will be revised to incorporate the
SL violation action which is currently delineated in administrative
control TS 5.7.1. TS Section 1.3 will be relocated to the currently
unused TS Section 2.13 to be more consistent with the content of the CE
STS (i.e., the LSSS will be located in the Limiting Conditions for
Operation (LCO) section of the FCS TS which is similar to the LCO/
Surveillance Requirements Section 3.0 of the STS). As noted above, the
administrative control in TS 5.7.1, ``Safety Limit Violation,'' will be
relocated to TS Section 2.13. Also, administrative control TS 5.9.5,
``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' item a., will be revised to
add TS 2.13, ``RPS Limiting Safety System Settings,'' Table 2-11, Items
6, 8, and 9, to the list of items that shall be documented in the COLR.
The TS table of contents (TOC) will be updated to reflect the deletion
and subsequent renumbering of TS 1.3 and Table 1-1 to TS 2.13 and Table
2-11, respectively. In addition, the TOC will be updated to delineate
the new TS subsections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, provide the revised titles for
TS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 2.13, and to reflect TS 5.7.1 as ``Not used.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not require any physical change to any
plant systems, structures, or components nor does it require any
change in systems or plant operations. The proposed change does not
require any change in safety analysis methods or results. The change
to establish the PFCT as the safety limit is consistent with the FCS
licensing basis for ensuring that the fuel design limits are met.
Operations and analysis will continue to be in compliance with NRC
regulations.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The accident analyses indicate that the peak linear heat rate
may exceed the present Limiting Safety System Setpoint of 22 kW/ft
during the Control Element Assembly (CEA) Drop, Excess Load, and
Loss of Feedwater Heating events. The analyses for these
[anticipated operational occurrences] indicate that the PFCT is not
significantly challenged or exceeded. The existing analyses remain
unchanged and do not affect any accident initiators that would
create a new 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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not require any change in accident
analysis methods or results. Therefore, by changing the SL from PLHR
to peak fuel centerline melt temperature, the margin, as established
in the current licensing basis, remains unchanged. The proposed
administrative change relocates descriptive information from one
section of the TS to another TS section, thereby maintaining the
information in the FCS TS, which has no effect on safety margins.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
[[Page 62691]]
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 3, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, requests adoption of an approved change to the Standard
Technical Specifications (STSs) for Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) plants
(NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434) and plant-specific technical specifications
(TSs), to allow the use of the improved banked position withdrawal
sequence (BPWS) during shutdowns in accordance with NEDO-33091-A,
Revision 2, ''Improved BPWS Control Rod Insertion Process,'' dated July
2004. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Industry/Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change
Traveler, TSTF-476, Revision 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff published 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 May 23, 2007, (72 FR
29004) as apart of the consolidated line-term improvement process
(CLIIP), and a correction on May 30, 2007, (72 FR 30043). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its
application dated October 3, 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:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed changes modify the TS to allow the use of the
improved banked position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) during shutdowns
if the conditions of NEDO-33091-A, Revision 2, ''Improved BPWS
Control Rod Insertion Process,'' July 2004, have been satisfied. The
staff finds that the licensee's justifications to support the
specific TS changes are consistent with the approved topical report
and TSTF-476, Revision 1. Since the change only involves changes in
control rod sequencing, the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The
consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-476 are no different
than the consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-476.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected by this change.
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 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 control rod drop accident (CRDA)
is the design basis accident for the subject TS changes. This change
does not create the possibility of a new or 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, TSTF-476, Revision 1, incorporates the
improved BPWS, previously approved in NEDO-33091-A, into the
improved TS. The control rod drop accident (CRDA) is the design
basis accident for the subject TS changes. In order to minimize the
impact of a CRDA, the BPWS process was developed to minimize control
rod reactivity worth for BWR plants. The proposed improved BPWS
further simplifies the control rod insertion process, and in order
to evaluate it, the staff followed the guidelines of Standard Review
Plan Section 15.4.9, and referred to General Design Criterion 28 of
Appendix A to 10 CFR part 50 as its regulatory requirement. The TSTF
stated the improved BPWS provides the following benefits: (1) Allows
the plant to reach the all-rods-in condition prior to significant
reactor cool down, which reduces the potential for re-criticality as
the reactor cools down; (2) reduces the potential for an operator
reactivity control error by reducing the total number of control rod
manipulations; (3) minimizes the need for manual scrams during plant
shutdowns, resulting in less wear on control rod drive (CRD) system
components and CRD mechanisms; and (4) eliminates unnecessary
control rod manipulations at low power, resulting in less wear on
reactor manual control and CRD system components. The addition of
procedural requirements and verifications specified in NEDO-33091-A,
along with the proper use of the BPWS will prevent a control rod
drop accident (CRDA) from occurring while power is below the low
power setpoint (LPSP). 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 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: 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: October 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would add
a 72-hour Completion Time (CT) for an inoperable swing diesel
generator. Currently, the Technical Specifications (TSs) provide a 14-
day CT which may be used provided that planned maintenance on certain
plant components is restricted prior to entering, and for the duration
of, the 14-day CT. The 72-hour CT and the 14-day CT are explicitly
addressed in the TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for four of
the five emergency diesel generators. In addition, the 14-day CT is
explicitly addressed in the TS LCO for the fifth diesel generator, the
swing diesel generator. Further, the existing 14-day CT and the
proposed 72-hour CT are currently described in the TS Bases for LCO
3.8.1. This proposed change will provide an explicit reference to the
72-hour CT in the actual TS for the swing diesel.
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?
The proposed change will explicitly add, to the Technical
Specifications (TS), a 72 hour CT for the swing diesel generator in
addition to the 14 day CT already listed. The 72 hour CT is
currently imposed on the swing DG until it can be verified that
planned maintenance restrictions are in place. Mention of the
planned restrictions is also being added to the specifications for
the dedicated DGs for consistency. This TS change does not propose
any physical changes to systems or components that are important to
safety, including those systems that are designed to prevent
previously evaluated accidents, or to mitigate the consequences of
those accidents.
Additionally, this proposed TS change does not change any safety
analyses for LOCA/LOSP [loss-of-coolant accident/loss-
[[Page 62692]]
of-offsite power] with respect to diesel generator availability or
capabilities. This change does not request an increase to the diesel
generator out of service CT, in fact, it acts to enforce a 72 hour
CT for the swing diesel.
Consequently, this TS change does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
This proposed TS change explicitly adds a 72 hour CT to the
swing diesel generator ``Completion Time'' column of LCO 3.8.1, and
adds mention of the planned maintenance restrictions to the same
column for the dedicated DGs as well. These TS changes will reflect
the current practices of the operating staff with respect to the
handling of inoperable diesel generators. No requests are being made
to increase the CTs for the diesel generators; instead, the more
restrictive 72 hour CT for the swing diesel is being explicitly
added to the TS, which currently only includes the 14 day CT.
No changes are being made to the operations, maintenance, or
testing of plant equipment. No new modes of operation are proposed
and therefore, no new failure modes are introduced.
Consequently, 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
the margin of safety?
This TS change will include a more restrictive 72 hour CT for
the swing diesel generator in addition to the 14 day CT currently
listed in the TS. The 72 hour CT will reflect that planned
maintenance restrictions must be in place before using the 14 day CT
on the swing DG. For consistency, mention of the maintenance
restrictions is being added to the CT for the dedicated DGs as well.
These changes are more restrictive than what is currently included
in the TS. Accordingly, the changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the 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: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC
20037.
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: March 22, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated July 25, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment consists of changes
to various technical specifications (TSs) related to the variable low
reactor coolant system pressure-temperature core protection safety
limit, which is being changed to accommodate the introduction of AREVA
NP's Mark-B-HTP fuel design in the TMI-1 cycle 17 reload (fall 2007).
Date of issuance: October 15, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No. 262.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR
20377). The supplement dated July 25, 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 October 15, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: November 1, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated November 22, 2006, April 4, May 7, August
16, and September 21, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The change revised the Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Technical Specification Surveillance
Requirement 3.3.1.1.7 for the surveillance interval of the local power
range monitor calibrations from 1000 megawatt-days per ton (MWD/T)
(approximately every 36 days) to 2000 MWD/T (approximately every 72
days).
Date of issuance: October 24, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 177.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revises the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2006 (71 FR
70559). The supplements dated November 22, 2006, April 4, May 7, August
16, and September 21, 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.
[[Page 62693]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: November 17, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would
modify the technical specifications (TS) to replace references to
Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) with a reference to the ASME Code of
Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants in TS 5.5.7,
``Inservice Testing Program.'' These changes are consistent with the
implementation of the LSCS, Units 1 and 2, for the third 10-year IST
program.
Date of issuance: October 12, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 185/172.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR
17948). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et. al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-
389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: October 19, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise various
technical specifications (TSs) to address requirements that should have
been changed as part of amendments previously approved by the NRC, as
well as to correct some typographical errors.
Date of Issuance: October 22, 2007.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 202 and 149.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2007 (72 FR
00153).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et. al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: February 12, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised Technical
Specification 3/4.9.4, ``Containment Penetrations,'' to allow
containment penetrations that provide direct access from the
containment atmosphere to the outside to be open during refueling
activities if appropriate administrative controls are established.
Date of issuance: October 17, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 277.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (72 FR
17949).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FPL Energy Point Beach, 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: December 14, 2006, as
supplemented by letter dated June 13, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 5.6.5 (Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report( to add the FERRET Code as an approved
methodology for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits.
Date of issuance: October 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 229 and 234.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (72 FR
1780).
The June 13, 2007, supplement, contained clarifying information and
did not change the 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 October 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2), Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendments: June 27, 2007, as supplemented
on September 21, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments made changes to
Sections 3.3.3, ``Post Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,'' 3.5,
``Emergency Core Cooling Systems,'' and 3.6.14, sbull I11``Containment
Recirculation Drains,'' of the DCCNP-1 and DCCNP-2 Technical
Specifications to reflect resolution of issues raised by Generic Letter
(GL) 2004-02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency
Recirculation during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water
Reactors.''
Date of issuance: October 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to entry into Mode 4 following the DCCNP-1 spring
2008 refueling outage, and prior to entry into Mode 4 following the
DCCNP-2 fall 2007 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 282 and 299.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revise the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR
41786).
The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, 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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated October 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: July 26, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes values for
turbine first stage pressure associated with Pbypass from
the Technical Specifications (TSs). Pbypass is the reactor
power level below which the turbine stop valve closure and the turbine
control valve fast closure reactor protection system trip functions and
the end-of-cycle
[[Page 62694]]
recirculation pump trip are bypassed automatically.
Date of issuance: October 16, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 172.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45460).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et. al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and
50-281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: October 3, 2006, as
supplemented on March 28 and June 19, 2007.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the
Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements (SRs) to: (1) Change
the required frequency of containment sump inspections, and (2) replace
specific terminology associated with the existing sump screen design
with generic terminology applicable to both the existing design and the
replacement strainer being installed in response to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Generic Letter 2004-02, ``Potential Impact of
Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis
Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors.''
Date of issuance: October 15, 2007.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented at
the completion of Unit 1 fall 2007 refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.: 255, 254.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2006 (71 FR
65146). The supplements dated March 28 and June 19, 2007, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staffs' original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 15, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of
[[Page 62695]]
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
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system 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 person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/
. If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR
Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected]. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a
hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated on August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer(TM) is free and
is available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m.
[[Page 62696]]
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-
Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an e-
mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also
distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to
the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised
the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a
digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene
is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-
Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Non-timely 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).
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: September 17, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises technical
specification 3.6.1.9 on a one-time basis to allow an increase in the
annual limit for purging and venting containment from 1000 hours to
1400 hours during 2007.
Date of issuance: October 11, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 308.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-79: Amendment revised the
technical specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. 72 FR 54691, published September 26, 2007.
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been
received. The notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing
within 60 days after the date of publication of the notice, but
indicated that if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any
such hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated October 11, 2007.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of October 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-21435 Filed 11-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P