[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31717-31727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11963]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 May 8, 2008, to May 21, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 20, 2008 (73 FR 13021).
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; (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.
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
[[Page 31718]]
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
Viewer(TM 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. 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
[[Page 31719]]
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].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: November 2, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specification (TS) definitions, TS 3.5.B,
``Secondary Containment,'' and TS 3.17, ``Control Room Heating,
Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning System,'' to eliminate the
requirement for secondary containment to be operable during handling of
irradiated fuel.
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 is [based on a reanalysis of] a postulated
fuel handling accident inside the Reactor Building occurring during
fuel loading and refueling activities. The proposed change does not
involve a change to structures, components, or systems that would
affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the
Oyster Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Oyster
Creek Alternative Source Term (AST) methodology has been previously
reviewed and approved by the NRC. [The] AST [methodology] is used to
evaluate the dose consequences of the postulated fuel handling
accident. The postulated fuel handling accident has been analyzed
without credit for Secondary Containment integrity and Standby Gas
Treatment system operation. The resultant radiological consequences
are within the acceptance criteria set forth in [Title 10 of The
Code of Federal Regulations] 10 CFR [Section] 50.67 and [Regulatory
Guide] RG 1.183. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
This amendment does not alter methodology or equipment used
directly in fuel handling operations. The Secondary Containment
structure and the Standby Gas Treatment system, and any component
thereof, are not accident initiators. Actual fuel handling
operations are not affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the
probability of a fuel handling accident is not affected with the
proposed amendment. No other accident initiator is affected by the
proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed amendment will not create the possibility for a new
or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as
designed. Component integrity is not challenged. The changes do not
result in any event previously deemed incredible being made
credible. The changes do not result in more adverse conditions or
result in any increase in the challenges to safety systems. The
systems affected by the changes are used to mitigate the
consequences of an accident that has already occurred. The proposed
Technical Specification changes do not [reduce] the mitigative
function of these systems.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Safety margins and analytical [assumptions] have been evaluated
and have been found acceptable. The analyzed event has been
carefully selected and margin has been retained to ensure that the
analysis adequately bounds the postulated event scenario. The dose
consequences due to the postulated event comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.67 and the guidance of RG 1.183.
The proposed amendment is associated with the implementation of
a new licensing basis for the Oyster Creek Fuel Handling Accident.
The change from the original source term to a new source term taken
from RG 1.183 has been previously approved by the NRC for Oyster
Creek. The results of the accident analysis, revised in support of
the proposed license amendment, are subject to revised acceptance
criteria. The analysis has been performed using conservative
methodologies, as specified in RG 1.183. Safety margins have been
evaluated and analytical conservatism has been utilized to ensure
that the analysis adequately bounds the postulated limiting event
scenario. The dose consequences of this design basis accident remain
within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident
source term'', and RG 1.183. The proposed changes continue to ensure
that the doses at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low
population zone (LPZ), as well as the Control Room, are within
corresponding regulatory limits.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, and with the changes noted above, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Thomas S. O'Neill, Associate General
Counsel,
[[Page 31720]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
remove the operability and surveillance requirements for the heaters
contained in the shield building ventilation (SBV) system and in the
auxiliary building special ventilation (ABSV) system, and reduce the
operating time required to demonstrate SBV system operability.
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 SBV or ABSV system heaters are not accident initiators.
Their original purpose was to improve the effectiveness of the
system's charcoal adsorbers by decreasing the air stream humidity
before entering the adsorber section of the filter unit. However,
the currently required testing methodology for the ABSV and SBV
verifies charcoal adsorber iodine removal efficiency is greater than
assumed in the KPS radiological accident analysis of record (AOR),
with a safety factor of 2, without crediting the heaters.
The proposed amendment would not change any of the previously
evaluated accidents in the updated safety analysis report (USAR).
The current radiological accident analysis of record (AOR) bounds
operation of the plant without consideration of the shield building
ventilation (SBV) or auxiliary building special ventilation (ABSV)
heaters. In addition, the current testing requirements are adequate
to validate that the charcoal adsorber remains capable of performing
at its assumed efficiency without crediting humidity control. The
proposed change does not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of
an SSC. The result of this change will be the eventual removal of
un-needed equipment. Since the equipment is not needed and the
removal will make the system less complex, the probability of a
malfunction of the SBV system or the ABSV system is not
significantly increased.
In addition, removal of the post-accident electrical load
associated with the heaters reduces electrical load on the emergency
diesel generators, which provides additional margin regarding the
capability of emergency power.
In addition, elimination of the heaters from the ABSV reduces
post-accident heat load in the SV area, which in turn reduces the
potential for heat related equipment failures in the area.
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 SBV and ABSV systems are accident response systems and as
such do not cause or initiate accidents. The proposed change does
not functionally change the design or operation of the SBV system or
that of the ABSV system. Deletion of heater requirements from the TS
is based on the heaters not being needed for mitigation of any
accident condition and does not significantly affect the operation
of these systems. These systems will continue to meet the functional
requirements in the current radiological accident analysis of record
for Kewaunee and maintain calculated dose consequences within
acceptable limits. Because the SBV and ABSV systems are not accident
initiators, this proposed change will not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of 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 removal of the ABSV and SBCV heaters will result in a
reduction in the efficiency of the charcoal adsorber due to the
removal of the humidity reduction affect. However, these changes are
bounded within the assumptions of the AOR. Specifically, the
currently required testing methodology for the ABSV and SBV verifies
charcoal adsorber iodine removal efficiency is greater than assumed
in the KPS radiological accident analysis of record (AOR), with a
safety factor of 2, without crediting the heaters. The removal of
these heaters does not alter the safety margins contained in the
radiological accident analysis. The KPS current radiological
accident analysis was performed in accordance with NRC Regulatory
Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accident at Nuclear Power Reactors.'' Surveillance
requirement acceptance criteria for the SBV and the ABSV filters are
based on 95% RH and 30C, consistent with Generic Letter 99-02
guidance for systems without humidity control. Removal of the SBV
and ABSV heaters does not alter the safety margins contained in the
current radiological accident analyses or the surveillance testing
criteria. The charcoal adsorber sample laboratory testing protocol
accurately demonstrates the required performance of the adsorbers in
the SBV and ABSV systems following a design basis accident. These
testing standards ensure adequate margin exists and that the
charcoal will perform its design basis function. The offsite and
control room dose analyses are not affected by this change, and
offsite and control room doses will remain within the limits of 10
CFR 50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183.
The current surveillance test acceptance criteria for the ABSV
and SBV systems currently provide a safety factor of 2 when compared
to the assumptions for charcoal filter performance in the current
radiological accident analysis. This safety factor will not be
adversely affected by the proposed change.
Furthermore, removal of the TS requirement will allow the
heaters to be permanently de-energized. This will result in an
increase in the margin between the post-accident calculated load and
the load limitations on both emergency diesel generators and between
the ambient temperature limitations of certain safety related
equipment and the calculated maximum post-accident ambient
temperature for this equipment.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois James.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and
2, Will County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 21, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the current licensing basis associated with the application of
the alternative source term (AST) methodology, previously approved by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Specifically, the
proposed amendment would remove credit in the AST analyses for the
control room ventilation system recirculation filters, which function
as prefilters.
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?
[[Page 31721]]
Response: No.
The AST methodology, as previously reviewed and approved for use
at Braidwood and Byron Stations by the NRC, follows the guidance
provided in RG 1.183 and satisfies the dose limits in 10 CFR 50.67.
However, it was recently identified that a misapplication of a
Control Room Ventilation (VC) System prefilter efficiency was
incorporated into the previously approved AST analyses. As a result,
it was necessary to revise the Braidwood Station and Byron Station
AST calculations to remove credit for the prefilter. To offset the
increase in dose associated with the removal of the prefilter
credit, the assumed control room unfiltered air inleakage value was
also reduced from 1000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) to 500 cfm. The
implementation of the revised AST assumptions has been evaluated in
revisions to the analyses of the following DBAs at the Braidwood
Station and Byron Station.
Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA).
Locked Rotor Accident (LRA).
Control Rod Ejection Accident (CREA).
The proposed changes to the assumptions used in the AST analyses
do not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. The proposed changes
to the AST analyses do not require any physical changes to the
plant. Application of the proposed changes to the AST analyses does
not result in changes to the functions and operation of various
filtration systems as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). The proposed change to the AST assumptions will not
alter the capability of any structure, system, or component (SSC) to
perform its design function. Therefore, the proposed changes being
evaluated do not alter existing accident initiators. Since DBA
initiators are not being altered by the proposed change to the AST
methodology assumptions, the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not affected.
The revised AST analyses did result in an increase in the
calculated control room dose; however, there was no change in the
offsite dose. The results of the revised AST analyses have
demonstrated that the 10 CFR 50.67 limits are still satisfied. Since
the resulting control room dose continues to comply with the
regulatory limits associated with the AST methodology, the changes
do not constitute a significant change. Therefore, it is concluded
that the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do 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.
The proposed change is to the assumptions used in the AST
analyses and will not change the design function or operation of any
SSCs. Revision of the AST analyses assumptions will not result in a
credible new failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiator
not considered in the design and licensing bases. The proposed
changes do not require any physical changes to any SSCs involved in
the mitigation of any accidents. In addition, no precursors of a new
or different kind of accident are created. New equipment or
personnel failure modes that might initiate a new type of accident
are not created as a result of the proposed changes.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves revising the Braidwood and Byron
Stations' AST calculations to remove credit for the VC System
prefilters and reduce the assumed control room air inleakage value.
The safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the
revised AST assumptions were evaluated and found acceptable. The
results of the revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the
proposed changes, are subject to specific acceptance criteria as
specified in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67.
The AST calculations for the LOCA, LRA, and CREA were revised
and updated control room doses determined based on the revised
assumptions. The revised calculations indicate an increase in
control room dose when compared to the doses documented in the
current licensing basis for Braidwood and Byron Stations; however,
the revised dose consequences for the applicable DBAs remain within
the acceptance criteria presented in RG 1.183. The revised control
room doses were compared to the regulatory limits specified in 10
CFR 50.67 and have been demonstrated to remain within the specified
limits. Since the resulting control room doses continue to meet the
regulatory limits the proposed changes do not constitute a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
While the proposed changes do result in an increased control
room dose, there is no change in the offsite dose. This proposed
change in the analysis assumptions affects only the control room
dose and does not affect the calculated offsite doses. Therefore,
the proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the
exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low population zone boundary (LPZ)
are within the specified regulatory limits and do not result in a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, the proposed changes
do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352 and No. 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et. al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 21, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment removes
references to and limits imposed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Generic Letter (GL) 82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours,''
from the subject plants' technical specifications (TS). The guidelines
have been superseded by the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 26 (10 CFR 26), Subpart I, ``Managing
Fatigue.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or
[[Page 31722]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The removal of references to GL 82-12 will not remove the
requirement to control work hours and manage fatigue. Removal of TS
references to GL 82-12 will be performed concurrently with the
implementation of the more conservative 10 CFR 26, Subpart I,
requirements. The proposed changes do not impact the physical
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do
not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, nor do
they impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events.
Because these new requirements are more conservative with
respect to work hour controls and fatigue management, this will not
significantly increase the probability or consequence of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes remove references to GL 82-12 from TS to
support the addition of Subpart I to 10 CFR 26. These regulations
are more restrictive than the current guidance and would add
conservatism to work hour controls and fatigue management. Work
hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC
requirements. The new rule continues to allow for deviations from
controls to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or
necessary to maintain the security of the facility. This ensures
that the new rule will not restrict work hours at the expense of the
health and safety of the public as well as plant personnel.
The proposed changes do not alter plant configuration, require
that new plant equipment be installed, alter assumptions made about
accidents previously evaluated, add any initiators, or impact the
function of plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Because the proposed changes do not remove the station's
requirement to control work hours and increases the conservatism of
work hour controls by changing administrative scheduling
requirements, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
An input to maintaining the margin of safety is the control of
work hours as a tool in managing fatigue. The affected stations will
continue their fitness-for-duty and behavioral observation programs,
both of which will be strengthened by compliance with the new rule.
The proposed changes add conservatism to fatigue management and
contribute to the margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant SSCs or the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do not involve
a change to any safety limits, limiting safety system settings,
limiting conditions of operation, or design parameters for any SSC.
The proposed changes do not impact any safety analysis assumptions
and does not involve a change in initial conditions, system response
times, or other parameters affecting an accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed 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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: February 5, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) to eliminate the second condition of
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) 2.5(1)A. The current LCO
2.5(1)A. states, ``With one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW
[auxiliary feedwater] pump inoperable, restore the steam supply to
OPERABLE status within 7 days and within 8 days from discovery of the
failure to meet the LCO.'' The amendment would eliminate the second
condition that states, ``and within 8 days from discovery of failure to
meet the LCO.'' The proposed change is consistent with the objective of
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439, Revision
2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of
Failure to Meet an LCO.''
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.
The proposed change eliminates the second completion time from
the technical specifications pertaining to the auxiliary feedwater
(AFW) system. Completion times are not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an
accident during the revised completion time are no different than
the consequences of the same accident during the existing completion
time. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed change does
not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components from performing their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types
or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. 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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
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 change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made
in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change deleting the second completion time from the
technical specification pertaining to the AFW system does not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The
proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside of the design basis. 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 31723]]
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: April 29, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specifications Figure 3.1.7-1, showing the sodium
pentaborate solution volume versus concentration requirements by re-
labeling the horizontal axis.
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
This proposed Technical Specifications change will not result in
any changes to the operation, maintenance, or surveillance of any
plant systems, structures, or components designed for the prevention
or mitigation of previously evaluated events. This amendment
proposes editorial changes to the Figure 3.1.7-1, ``sodium
sentaborate Solution Volume Versus Concentration Requirements.'' The
plot will be enlarged such that all the tic marks on the horizontal
axis can be labeled. The plotted data remains the same. Therefore
the response to an ATWS [Anticipated Transient Without Scram] event
or to any other event requiring use of the SLC [Standby Liquid
Control] system is unaffected.
For the above reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a
previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No
This proposed amendment does not make any changes to the
operation testing, maintenance, or surveillance of any safety
related, or otherwise important to safety, system. These systems
will all continue to be operated, surveilled and maintained within
their design bases. The proposed changes to the SLC system figure is
editorial and will improve the readability of the plot.
For the reasons noted above, this proposed amendment will not
introduce the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No
This proposed amendment makes an editorial revision to the
Technical Specifications. Specifically, the plot of Sodium
Pentaborate solution volume versus concentration is being enlarged
to enable the proper labeling of all the tic marks on the horizontal
axis, which indicates the volume. The plotted data is not changing.
Therefore, the Technical Specifications assumptions and margins to
safety remain unaffected.
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: Melanie C. Wong.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259 , Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 26, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) material surveillance program
required by Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50. This program incorporates the
Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP) Integrated
Surveillance Program (ISP) into the BFN Unit 1 licensing basis. The
program developed by the BWRVIP has been previously evaluated by the
NRC staff and found to be acceptable, and similar amendments have been
approved for BFN Units 2 and 3.
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 amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change implements an integrated surveillance
program that has been evaluated by the NRC staff as meeting the
requirements of paragraph III.C of Appendix H to 10 CFR 50.
Consequently, the change does not significantly increase the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The change
provides the same assurance of RPV integrity. The change will not
cause the reactor pressure vessel or interfacing systems to be
operated outside their design or testing limits. Also, the change
will not alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the
radiological consequences of accidents. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change revises the BFN Unit 1 licensing basis to
reflect participation in the BWRVIP ISP. The proposed change does
not involve a modification of the design of plant structures,
systems, or components. The change will not impact the manner in
which the plant is operated as plant operating and testing
procedures will not be affected by the change. The change will not
degrade the reliability of structures, systems, or components
important to safety as equipment protection features will not be
deleted or modified, equipment redundancy or independence will not
be reduced, supporting system performance will not be increased, and
increased or more severe testing of equipment will not be imposed.
No new accident types or failure modes will be introduced as a
result of this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from that previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change has been evaluated as providing an
acceptable alternative to the plant-specific RPV material
surveillance program and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50
Appendix H for RPV material surveillance. Appendix G to 10 CFR 50
describes the conditions that require pressure temperature (P/T)
limits and provides the general bases for these limits. Until the
results from the Integrated Surveillance Program become available,
RG 1.99, Revision 2 will be used to predict the amount of neutron
irradiation damage. The use of operating limits based on these
criteria, as defined by applicable regulations, codes, and
standards, provide reasonable assurance that nonductile or rapidly
propagating failure will not occur. The P/T limits are not derived
from Design Basis Accident (DBA) analyses. They are prescribed
during normal operation to avoid encountering pressure, temperature,
and temperature rate of change conditions that might cause
undetected flaws to propagate and cause nonductile failure of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB). Since the P/T limits are
not derived from any DBA, there are no acceptance limits related to
the P/T limits. Rather, the P/T limits are acceptance limits
themselves since they preclude operation in an unanalyzed condition.
The proposed change will not affect any safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions of operation. The
proposed change does not represent a change in initial conditions,
or in a system response time, or in any other parameter affecting
the course of an accident analysis supporting the Bases of any
Technical Specification. Further, the proposed change does not
involve a revision to P/T limits but rather a revision to the
surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule such that there are
presently no plans to remove any surveillance capsules from BFN Unit
1. The
[[Page 31724]]
current P/T limits were established based on adjusted reference
temperatures for RPV beltline materials calculated in accordance
with RG 1.99, Revision 2. P/T limits will continue to be revised, as
necessary, for changes in adjusted reference temperature due to
changes influence when two or more credible surveillance data sets
become available. When two or more credible surveillance data sets
become available, P/T limits will be revised as prescribed by RG
1.99, Revision 2 or other NRC approved guidance. 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-281, Surry Power
Station, Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 14, 2008, as supplemented on May
6, 2008.
Brief Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
allowed a one-cycle revision to Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, TS 6.4.Q, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 6.6.3, ``Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report,'' were revised to incorporate an interim alternate
repair criterion (IARC) into the provisions for SG tube repair.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: April
25, 2008 (73 FR 22443).
Expiration date of individual notice: The comment period would have
expired May 27, 2008. The Hearing period will expire June 24, 2008. A
Public Notice was published in the Daily Press on May 12, and May 13,
2008, based on the supplemental letter dated May 6, 2008. The Daily
Press notice provided an opportunity to submit comments by May 15,
2008. No comments have been received.
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].
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: January 14, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related to control room envelope
habitability in accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-448-
A, ``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 230.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (73
FR 8070). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: October 12, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated March 22 and April 4, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the FCS
design and licensing basis to increase the shutdown cooling (SDC)
system entry temperature from 300 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to 350
[deg]F (cold leg), and the SDC entry pressure from 250 pounds per
square inch absolute (psia) to 300 psia (indicated at the pressurizer).
Additionally, the Updated Safety Analysis Report described design
methodology, applied to the SDC heat exchangers, is changed.
Date of issuance: May 9, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the 2008 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 256.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72
FR
[[Page 31725]]
65370). The supplemental letters dated March 22 and April 4, 2008,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 9, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station
(HCGS), Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: September 18, 2006, as
supplemented by additional letters dated October 10 and 20, 2006,
February 14, 16, and 28, March 13, 22, and 30, April 13, 18, and 30,
May 10, 18, and 24, June 22, July 12, August 3, 17, 27, and 31,
September 11, October 10 and 23, November 15 and 30, December 31, 2007,
January 14, 15, 16, 18, 25 and 30, March 18, and May 2, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment increases the HCGS
authorized maximum power level by approximately 15 percent, from the
current licensed thermal power of 3339 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3840
MWt. The amendment revises the HCGS Operating License and Technical
Specifications necessary to implement the increased power level.
Date of issuance: May 14, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 174.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (72 FR
24627). The supplements dated October 10 and 20, 2006, February 14, 16,
and 28, March 13, 22, and 30, April 13, 18, and 30, May 10, 18, and 24,
June 22, July 12, August 3, 17, 27, and 31, September 11, October 10
and 23, November 15 and 30, December 31, 2007, January 14, 15, 16, 18,
25 and 30, March 18, and May 2, 2008, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2008.
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 31726]]
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 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 Viewer\TM\ 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. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
[[Page 31727]]
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket No. STN 50-529, Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: April 10, 2008, as supplemented
by letter dated April 30, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.5.5, Refueling Water Tank (RWT) to increase the
minimum required RWT level indications and the corresponding borated
water volumes in TS Figure 3.5.5-1, ``Minimum Required RWT Volume,'' by
approximately 3 percent. This change will ensure that there is adequate
water volume available in the RWT to ensure that the engineered safety
feature pumps and the new containment recirculation sump strainers will
meet their design functions during loss-of-coolant accidents.
Date of issuance: May 9, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the 2008 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: Unit 2--169.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-51: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. An individual 14-day Notice of Consideration
of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License was published in
the Federal Register on April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20961). 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 by June 16, 2008, but
indicated that if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any
such hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment.
The supplemental letter dated April 30, 2008, 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, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated May 9, 2008.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of May 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. McGinty,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-11963 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P