[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2546-2557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-421]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 December 20, 2007 to January 2, 2008. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74354).
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
[[Page 2547]]
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 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,
person(s) 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
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
[[Page 2548]]
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
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.
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].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 29, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) section 3.6.8, ``Isolation Valve
Seal Water (IVSW) System.'' The proposed change revises Surveillance
Requirements (SR) 3.6.8.2 and 3.6.8.6 related to IVSW tank volume and
header flow rates. Specifically, the proposed change would clarify the
wording of SR 3.6.8.2, and revise SR 3.6.8.6 to provide a total flow
rate limit from all four headers in place of the individual header
limits.
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.
The proposed change is related to the Isolation Valve Seal Water
System. This is a postaccident dose mitigating system and has no
impact on the probability of an accident occurring. The proposed
change to SR 3.6.8.2 is a clarification that does not impact the
system design or operation. The proposed change to SR 3.6.8.6
revises the methodology used to establish the system flow limits,
but maintains the same total flow limitation and consistency with
the system design. Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 2549]]
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the design of the system and
does not increase the potential for a failure that would result in
an accident of a different kind.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction
in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change does not revise the total leakage limit or
the design requirements for the Isolation Valve Seal Water System.
There is no impact on the capability of the containment as a fission
product barrier.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.1.e to
allow performance of testing for nozzle blockage to be based on the
occurrence of activities that could potentially result in nozzle
blockage rather than a fixed periodic basis. Currently, the testing for
nozzle blockage is performed every 10 years. DNC proposes to change
this frequency to ``following maintenance that could cause nozzle
blockage.''
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:
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The spray nozzles and the associated containment spray system
are designed to perform accident mitigation functions only. The
containment spray system and associated components are not
considered as initiators of any analyzed accidents. The proposed
change does not modify any plant equipment. The proposed change
modifies the frequency for performance of a surveillance test which
does not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident.
The proposed frequency change does not effect the ability of the
spray nozzles or spray system to perform its accident mitigation
function as assumed and therefore there is no effect on the
consequence of any accident. Verification of no blockage continues
to be required, but now as a function of activities that could
result in blockage rather than an arbitrary surveillance frequency.
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2:
Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The containment spray system is not being physically modified
and there is no impact on the capability of the system to perform
accident mitigation functions. No system setpoints are being
modified and no changes are being made to the method in which
borated water is delivered to the spray nozzles. The testing
requirements imposed by this proposed change to check for nozzle
blockage following activities that could cause nozzle blockage do
not introduce new failure modes for the system. The proposed
amendment does not introduce accident initiators or malfunctions
that would cause a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3:
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change or introduce any new
setpoints at which mitigating functions are initiated. No changes to
the design parameters of the containment spray system are being
proposed. No changes in system operation are being proposed by this
change that would impact an established safety margin. The proposed
change modifies the frequency for verification of nozzle operability
in such a way that continued high confidence exists that the
containment spray system will continue to function as designed.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed amendment 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT
06385.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 13, 2007, as supplemented July 13,
September 12, November 19, December 13, and December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed stretch power uprate
(SPU) license amendment request would increase the unit's authorized
core power level from 3,411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,650 MWt, and
make changes to Technical Specifications (TSs) and licensing bases as
necessary to support operation at the stretch power level. The changes
to TSs include the following: Definitions; TS 2.1.1.1, ``Safety
Limits;'' TS Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip
Setpoints, Functional Unit 12, Reactor Coolant Flow--Low;'' TS Table
2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, Functional
Unit 18c, Power Range Neutron Flux, P-8;'' TS Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor
Trip Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, Table Notations;'' TS 3/4.2.3,
``Reactor Coolant System Flow Rate and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot
Channel Factor;'' TS 3/4.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System Instrumentation;'' TS 3/4.4.4.3, ``Pressurizer;'' TS 3/4.7.1,
``Turbine Cycle;'' TS 3/4.7.7, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation
System;'' TS 3/4.7.14, ``Area Temperature Monitoring;'' TS 3/4.9.13,
``Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity;'' TS 5.6, ``Fuel Storage Criticality;''
TS 6.8.4.f, ``Administrative Controls--Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program;'' and TS 6.9.1.6, ``Administrative Controls--Core Operating
Limits Report.'' The changes to the licensing bases include the
following: Safety Grade Cold Shutdown; Branch Technical Position CMEB
9.5.1, sections 5.c.3 and 5.c.5--``Fire shutdown strategy for long-term
steam generator inventory make-up;'' and the demineralized water
storage tank.
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:
[[Page 2550]]
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The accident analyses documented in Chapter 6 and 15 of the FSAR
[Final Safety Analysis Report] have been reanalyzed at the SPU
[Stretch Power Uprate] conditions. For some accidents, credit has
been taken for a number of minor modifications that will be
installed in order to maintain analytical and operating margin.
These minor modifications include the following:
Installation of a Safety Injection Actuation Signal
permissive for the charging injection isolation valves.
Installation of an electronic filter on the T-hot
temperature input into the Reactor Protection System and
modification of the Over-temperature Delta T and Over-power Delta T
reactor trip set points.
Elimination of the automatic rod withdrawal capability
for the rod control system.
Installation of an automatic initiation of pressurized
filtration mode of the Control Building ventilation system.
Technical Specifications (TS) changes, as appropriate, have been
proposed to reflect the implementation of these modifications. The
revised accident analyses have been performed with current state-of-
the-art methodologies that have been generically approved by the NRC
[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. All restrictions and limitations of
these methodologies, including those identified by the NRC, have
been met in the application of these methodologies to the SPU
accident analyses. The results of the accident analyses at SPU
conditions together with the proposed modifications demonstrate that
all design basis criteria are met and that the SPU does not result
in a significant increase in the consequences of any previously
evaluated accidents.
Analyses have been performed for operational transients that
have identified some changes to control system set points. These
changes assure that the control systems will respond and limit
challenges to the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS) from routine operational transients, such as
startup and shutdown. These changes assure that there will be no
significant increase in probability of occurrence of an accident at
SPU conditions.
Comprehensive evaluations of plant structures, systems and
components (SSCs) have been performed and confirmed that all systems
are capable of performing their intended design functions at uprated
power conditions. Some Technical Specifications Surveillance
Requirements have been revised to reflect SPU conditions and to
reflect current generic TS standards. All systems will continue to
be operated in accordance with design requirements under SPU
conditions; therefore, no new components or system interactions have
been identified that could lead to an increase in the probability of
any accident previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR).
The radiological consequence calculations were revised to
reflect SPU conditions and the predicted releases from the revised
accident analyses. All results continue to meet established
regulatory limits and there is no significant increase in
radiological consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Detailed evaluations of the configuration, operation, and
accident response of the SSCs under SPU conditions and the
associated proposed TS changes have been performed to confirm that
all SSCs will perform as designed. Analyses of transient events have
confirmed that no transient event results in a new sequence of
events that could lead to a new accident scenario.
The effect of operation under SPU conditions on plant equipment
has been evaluated. A failure modes and effect evaluation has been
performed for the proposed new ECCS permissive for the charging
injection valves. This has shown that the change does not create any
new failure modes that could lead to a different kind of accident.
Other minor plant modifications, to support implementation of SPU
conditions, will be made to existing systems and components. These
modifications provide added margin so that the SSCs will continue to
perform their design function and no new safety-related equipment or
systems will be installed which could potentially introduce new
failure modes or accident sequences.
Based on this analysis, it is concluded that no new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed TS
changes do not have an adverse effect on any aspect of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
A comprehensive analysis was performed to support the power SPU
program at MPS3 [Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3]. This analysis
identified and defined the major input parameters to the Nuclear
Steam Supply System (NSSS), reviewed NSSS design transients, and
reviewed the capabilities of the NSSS fluid systems, NSSS/BOP
(balance-of-plant) interfaces, and NSSS and BOP components. The
nuclear and thermal hydraulic performance of nuclear fuel was also
reviewed to confirm acceptable results. Only minor plant
modifications, to support implementation of SPU conditions, will be
made to existing systems and components. Changes in set points for
actuation of equipment provide added margin for performing the
required safety functions and do not adversely affect the outcome of
any postulated accident. The analysis indicated that all NSSS and
BOP systems and components will continue to operate within existing
design and safety limits under SPU conditions.
The margin of safety of the reactor coolant pressure boundary is
maintained under SPU conditions. The design pressure of the reactor
pressure vessel and reactor coolant system will not be challenged as
the pressure mitigating systems were confirmed to be sufficiently
sized to adequately control pressure under SPU conditions.
The radiological consequences were re-calculated at SPU
conditions for Design Bases Accidents (DBAs) previously analyzed in
the FSAR. The analysis showed that the radiological consequences of
DBAs continue to meet established regulatory limits at SPU
conditions.
The analyses supporting the SPU program have demonstrated that
all systems and components are capable of safely operating at SPU
conditions. All DBA acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not result
in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on this review, the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, DNC determined that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Waterford, CT 06141-5127.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna
Power Station, Unit 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.15, pertaining to the containment leak
rate testing program. The TS change would permit a onetime 5-year
exception to the 10-year frequency of the performance based leakage
rate testing program for Type A tests, as required by Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.163. This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement would
allow the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 9,
2014.
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:
[[Page 2551]]
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated since extension of
the containment Type A testing is no a physical plant modification
that could alter the probability of accident occurrence nor, is an
activity or modification by itself that could lead to equipment
failure or accident initiation.
The proposed extension to Type A testing does not result in a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident as
documented in [NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission)] NUREG-1493. The NUREG notes that very few potential
containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests.
It concludes that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per
twenty years leads to an imperceptible increase in risk.
North Anna provides a high degree of assurance through testing
and inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner
detectable only by Type A testing. The last three Type A tests
identified containment leakage within acceptance criteria,
indicating a very leak-tight containment. Inspections required by
the [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also
performed in order to identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and
C testing, required by Technical Specifications, identifies any
containment opening from design penetrations, such as valves, that
would otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These factors
establish that an extension to the North Anna Type A test interval
will not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications
adds a one-time extension to the current interval for Type A
testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past
performance, will be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years
from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing
does not create the possibility of a new or different type of
accident since there are no physical changes being made to the plant
and there are no changes to the operation of the plant that could
introduce a new failure.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications
adds a one-time extension to the current interval for Type A
testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past
performance, will be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years
from the last Type A test. RG 1.174 provides guidance for
determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes to the
licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines very small changes in risk as
resulting in increases of [core damage frequency] CDF below 1E-6/yr
and increases in [large early release fraction] LERF below 1E-7/yr.
Since the Type A test does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is
LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A
test interval from a once-per-ten-years to a once-per-fifteen years
is 1.58E-7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174 states that when
the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1E-7/yr to 1E-6/
yr, applications will be considered if it can be shown that the
total LERF is less than 1E-5/yr.
Since the total LERF is 1.20E-6yr, the change is considered
small and not a significant reduction in margin. Increasing the Type
A test interval from ten to fifteen years is, therefore, considered
non-risk significant and will not significantly reduce the margin of
safety.
The NUREG-1493 generic study of the effects of extending
containment leakage testing found that a 20-year extension in Type A
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the
public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically, the design containment
leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and
that decreasing the Type A testing frequency would have a minimal
affect on this risk since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage paths
would already be detected by Type B and C testing. Furthermore, for
North Anna, maintaining the containment subatmospheric [pressure]
during plant operations further reduces the risk of any containment
leakage path going undetected.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-281, Surry Power
Station, Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 4.4, pertaining to the containment leak
rate testing program. The TS change would permit a one-time 5-year
exception to the 10-year frequency of the performance based leakage
rate testing program for Type A tests, as required by Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.163. This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement would
allow the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 26,
2015.
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?
The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated since extension of
the containment Type A testing is not a physical plant modification
that could alter the probability of accident occurrence nor, is an
activity or modification by itself that could lead to equipment
failure or accident initiation.
The proposed extension to Type A testing does not result in a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident as
documented in [NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission)] NUREG-1493. The NUREG notes that very few potential
containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests.
It concludes that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per
twenty years leads to an imperceptible increase in risk.
Surry provides a high degree of assurance through testing and
inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner
detectable only by Type A testing. The last two Type A tests
identified containment leakage within acceptance criteria,
indicating a very leak-tight containment. Inspections required by
the [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also
performed in order to identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and
C testing, required by Technical Specifications, identifies any
containment opening from design penetrations, such as valves, that
would otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These factors
establish that an extension to the Surry Type A test interval will
not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed revision to Surry Technical Specifications adds a
one-time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, will
be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the last Type
A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing does not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident since there are
no physical changes being made to the plant and there are no changes
to the operation of the plant that could introduce a new failure.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to Surry Technical Specifications adds a
one-time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, will
be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the last Type
A test. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 provides
[[Page 2552]]
guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes
to the licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines small changes in risk as
resulting in increases of [core damage frequency] CDF below 1E-5/yr
and increases in [large early release fraction] LERF below 1E-6/yr.
Since the Type A test does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is
LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A
test interval from a once-per-ten-years to a once-per-fifteen-years
is 1.3E-7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174 states that when
the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1E-7/yr to 1E-6/
yr, applications will be considered if it can be shown that the
total LERF is less than 1E-6/yr. Since the total LERF is 9.8E-7/yr,
the change is considered small and not a significant reduction in
margin. Increasing the Type A test interval from ten to fifteen
years is, therefore, considered non-risk significant and will not
significantly reduce the margin of safety.
The NUREG-1493 generic study of the effects of extending
containment leakage testing found that a 20-year extension in Type A
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the
public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically, the design containment
leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and
that decreasing the Type A testing frequency would have a minimal
effect on this risk since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage paths
would already be detected by Type B and C testing. Furthermore, for
Surry, maintaining the containment subatmospheric [pressure] during
plant operations further reduces the risk of any containment leakage
path going undetected.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: John Stang, Acting.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, pertaining to the diesel fuel oil
and starting air, to allow a one-time 14-day extension to the
completion time (CT) allowed for an emergency diesel generator (EDG)
diesel fuel storage tank taken out of service. The one-time extension
is intended for each of the fuel oil storage tanks to permit removal of
the current coating and recoat the storage tanks in preparation to use
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel oil as mandated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed extension of the Completion Time for the EDG fuel
oil storage tanks does not increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated since extension of the Completion Time does not
physically modify the plant in a manner that could alter the
probability of accident occurrence, nor is it an activity or
modification by itself that could lead to equipment failure or
accident initiation. [The] TS currently permit this planned
inspection and repair activity and provide the appropriate actions
to ensure an adequate supply of fuel oil is available during the
planned maintenance activity. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not affected by the extended
Completion Time.
The proposed extension of the Completion Time for the planned
maintenance activities on the fuel oil storage tanks does not result
in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident since
adequate fuel oil remains available to permit EDG operation during a
design basis accident [DBA].
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed revision to North Anna TS permits one-time
extension of the current 7-day Completion Time to 14-day for each
fuel oil storage tank for planned maintenance activities. This
proposed extension does not create the possibility of a new or
different type of accident since there are no physical changes being
made to the plant and there are no changes to the operation of the
plant that could introduce a new failure. The existing TS actions
ensure an adequate supply of fuel oil is available prior to the
maintenance to support EDG operation during a DBA.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications,
which only permit a one-time extension to the current 7-day
Completion Time for an inoperable fuel oil storage tank to 14 days,
will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. RG 1.174
provides guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific
changes to the licensing basis. The average annual increases in core
damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF)
resulting from the extended Completion Time for planned maintenance
activities on the fuel oil storage tanks are 5.6E-8/yr and 8.4E-10/
yr, respectively. RG 1.174 states that when the calculated increases
in CDF and LERF are below 1E-5/yr and 1E-6/yr, respectively,
applications will be considered when the total CDF and LERF are less
than 1E-4/yr and 1E-5/yr, respectively. Since the total CDF and LERF
for the proposed extended Completion Time meet these criteria for a
permanent plant change, the change is considered small and not a
significant reduction in margin. The one-time extension for planned
maintenance activities on each fuel oil storage tank is, therefore,
considered non-risk significant and will not significantly reduce
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 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., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: John Stang, Acting.
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.
[[Page 2553]]
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: June 29, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the TMI-1
technical specifications, to reflect a change to the Reactor Building
spray system buffering agent from sodium hydroxide to trisodium
phosphate dodecahydrate.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on a schedule consistent with the licensee's commitments regarding
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 2004-02, or within
30 days of issuance, whichever is less.
Amendment No.: 263.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49569). The supplements dated October 19, 2007, and November 29, 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 December 21, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: June 12, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated September 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.7.4 to add an Action Statement for two inoperable
control center air conditioning (AC) subsystems. The new Action
Statement allows a finite time to restore one control center AC
subsystem to operable status and requires verification every 4 hours
that control room temperature is maintained < 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 177.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51854).
The supplemental letter 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments: January 4, 2007, supplemented
November 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by removing the gaseous radioactivity monitor.
Date of Issuance: December 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 359, 361, 360.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (72
FR 8802) The supplement dated November 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 staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: May 29, 2007, as supplemented by letters
dated August 30 and September 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment reflects the transfer
of Facility Operating License No. NPF-47, to the extent formerly held
by Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (EGS) and Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI),
for the River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), which was approved by an
Order dated October 26, 2007. The transfer is associated with the
restructuring of EGS from a Texas corporation to a Louisiana limited
liability company, Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana, LLC (EGS-LA). EOI
will continue to operate RBS, and the proposed restructuring will not
affect the technical or financial qualifications of EOI.
Date of issuance: December 31, 2007.
Effective date: At the time the transfer is completed.
Amendment No.: 158.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (72 FR
37266). The supplements dated August 30 and September 19, 2007,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 31, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: April 25, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated June 28, August 30, September 13, October 18, and
November 1, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment increases the
licensed core power level 1.6 percent to 2609 megawatts thermal. This
increase will
[[Page 2554]]
be achieved by the use of high-accuracy heat balanced instrumentation,
including a Caldon Leading Edge Flowmeter CheckPlusTM
ultrasonic flow measurement system, which allows for more accurate
measurement of feedwater flow.
Date of issuance: December 27, 2007.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 228.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51862). The supplements dated August 30, September 13, October 18,
and November 1, 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 amendment
is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 27, 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 20, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
technical specification (TS) by adding an action statement for two
inoperable control boiling chiller (CBC) subsystems. The action
statement allows 72 hours to restore one CBC subsystem to operable
status and requires verification once every 4 hours that control
building temperatures are maintained to be less than 90 degrees
Fahrenheit. The amendment is consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)
Change Traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3.
Date of issuance: December 26, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 267.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54472), as corrected on October 10, 2007 (72 FR 57606). The
correction involved the misidentification of the licensee, not a
technical issue.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 26, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated July 17, August 1, and September 19,
2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the accident
source term in the design basis radiological consequence analyses in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.67. The revised accident source term revision replaces the
methodology that is based on Technical Information Document (TID)-
14844, ``Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor
Sites,'' with the alternate source term methodology described in
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' with the
exception that TID-14844 will continue to be used as the radiation dose
basis for equipment qualification and vital area access.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
120 days.
Amendment No.: 194.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR
11390). The supplements dated July 17, 2007, August 1, 2007, and
September 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 7, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete section 2.G
of Facility Operating License NFP-14 for SSES 1, which requires
reporting of violations of the requirements in sections 2.C and 2.F of
the facility operating license. The amendments also delete section 2.E
of Facility Operating License NPF-22 for SSES 2, which requires
reporting of violations of the requirements in section 2.C of the
facility operating license. This change is in accordance with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-372, Revision 4.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 244 and 222.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54478).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 8, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Limiting
Condition for Operation 3.10.1, and the associated Bases, to expand its
scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), but less than 212 [deg]F as a consequence
of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of
scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or
hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in
Mode 4 for SSES 1 and 2. This change is in accordance with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-484, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time
Testing Activities.''
Date of issuance: December 20, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 245 and 223.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54478).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a
[[Page 2555]]
Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 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 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.
[[Page 2556]]
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 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 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 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
[[Page 2557]]
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.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a license
condition to the Facility Operating License, for a one-time extension
of Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 3.3.1.1.8 concerning the calibration of Local Power Range
Monitors. This license condition also includes actions to ensure
continued compliance with the associated safety analysis and resolution
of this condition as soon as possible. This extension will allow
operation until Refuel Outage -14 and establishment of the necessary
conditions following the outage to allow the calibration to be
performed.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the required due date for the SR 3.3.1.1.8.
Amendment No.: 157.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License. Public comments requested as to proposed no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC):
No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding
of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated December 21,
2007.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of January 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-421 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P