[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34337-34347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13218]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22, 2008 to June 4, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31717).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D44, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave
to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect 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
[[Page 34338]]
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 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:
[[Page 34339]]
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: October 18, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) 4.5.M.1.e.1, ``Containment
System,'' concerning the mechanical snubbers functional test acceptance
criteria. Specifically, the change would replace the snubber breakaway
test with a drag force test.
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 modifies Technical Specifications (TS)
Section 4.5.M.1.e.1 concerning the Mechanical Snubbers Functional
Test Acceptance Criteria, specifically, replacement of the snubber
breakaway test with the drag force test. [Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part] 50.55a(b)(3)(v) permits the use
of [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Operations and
Maintenance (OM) Code], Subsection ISTD, in lieu of the ASME Code,
Section XI, for the inservice testing of snubbers. Subsection ISTD
of the ASME OM-Code, ``Preservice and Inservice Examination and
Testing of Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Light-Water Reactor
Nuclear Power Plants,'' provides the requirements for snubber
testing. A requirement to perform the breakaway test no longer
exists in the ASME OM Code. Current ASME OM Code requirements
require a drag force test. The drag force test is a more
encompassing representation of overall snubber resistance to thermal
movement because it is performed over the entire working range of
the snubber stroke. Therefore, a drag force test should be used
rather than the breakaway or ``force that initiated free movement''
as currently worded in the [Oyster Creek Generating Station] TS. In
addition to the above, the breakaway test is intended to be
performed prior to any movement of the snubber. This is an
impractical test situation, because the snubber has typically moved
while the unit is cooling down, and the piping experiences thermal
cycles.
The percentage of snubbers sampled and the period between
inspections has not changed. Also, the way the snubber functions has
not changed, only the method of testing that ensures continued
functionality of it. Elimination of the breakaway test will not
reduce the ability of snubbers to perform their intended design
function. Drag force testing as defined in the TS will ensure
adequate demonstration of snubber performance. Also, this change
will not increase the probability of malfunction of plant equipment,
or the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. Piping
systems that include snubbers in their configuration will still be
capable of performing their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change[s 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 change does not affect the assumed accident
performance of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary, nor any plant
structure, system, or component previously evaluated. The proposed
change does not involve the installation of new equipment, and
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different
manner. The change deletes the breakaway test for snubbers, which is
no longer required by the ASME OM Code, and replaces it with a drag
force test to ensure snubber functionality consistent with the ASME
OM Code. No set points are being changed which would alter the
dynamic response of plant equipment, and the design function of
systems associated with snubbers will not be altered. Accordingly,
no new failure modes or accident initiators are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change[s 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 does not affect the function of any safety
systems or response during plant transients. There are no changes
proposed which alter the set points at which protective actions are
initiated, and there is no change to the operability requirements
for equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation. The
snubbers will continue to perform their design function. This change
deletes the breakaway test for snubbers, which is no longer required
by the ASME OM Code, and replaces it with a drag force test.
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, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
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: March 10, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
relocate the pressure and temperature limit curves from the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to the licensee controlled ``Pressure and
Temperature
[[Page 34340]]
Limits Report.'' Additionally, the proposed change would update other
TS references from the TS contained curves to those in the Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report.
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 modifies the Technical Specifications (TS)
Section 1.0 (``Definitions''), Limiting Conditions for Operation
Section 3.3 (``Reactor Coolant''), Surveillance Requirement 4.3
(``Reactor Coolant''), and 6.0 (``Administrative Controls''), to
delete reference to the [Pressure-Temperature (P-T)] curves and
include reference to the [pressure-temperature limits report
(PTLR)]. This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A,
``Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors,'' dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and
temperature curves, and incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A
(``Revised PTLR Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS
PTLR''). [As stated in] an NRC [safety evaluation report] dated
February 6, 2007, ``the NRC staff has found that SIR-05-044 is
acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for General
Electric designed boiling water reactors to the extent specified and
under the limitations delineated in the [topical report (TR)] and in
the enclosed final [safety evaluation].'' As part of this change,
the PTLR based on the methodology and template provided in SIR-05-
044 is being supplied for review. The P-T curves utilize the
methodology of SIR-05-044-A.
The NRC has established requirements in Appendix G to [Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50] to protect the
integrity of [the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB)] in
nuclear power plants. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H,
provides the NRC staff's criteria for the design and implementation
of RPV material surveillance programs for operating lightwater
reactors. Implementing this NRC-approved methodology does not reduce
the ability to protect the RCPB as specified in Appendix G, nor will
this change increase the probability of malfunction of plant
equipment, or the failure of plant structures, systems, or
components. Incorporation of the new methodology for calculating P-T
curves from the TS to the PTLR provides an equivalent level of
assurance that the RCPB is capable of performing its intended safety
functions. Thus, the proposed change does not affect the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
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 change does not affect the assumed accident
performance of the RCPB, nor any plant structure, system, or
component previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve
the installation of new equipment, and installed equipment is not
being operated in a new or different manner. The change in
methodology ensures that the RCPB remains capable of performing its
safety functions. No setpoints are being changed which would alter
the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure
modes are introduced which could introduce the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
This change adopts the methodology of SIR-05-044-A, ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,''
dated April 2007 for preparation of the pressure and temperature
curves, and incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A (``Revise PTLR
Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR''). In an NRC SER
dated February 6, 2007, the NRC staff has found that SIR-05-044 is
acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for General
Electric designed boiling water reactors.
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.
The proposed change does not affect the function of the RCPB or
its response during plant transients. There are no changes proposed
which alter the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated,
and there is no change to the operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation. This change adopts the
methodology of SIR-05-044-A, ``Pressure-Temperature Limits Report
Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,'' dated April 2007 for
preparation of the P-T curves. 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, 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, 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, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin.
Date of amendment request: April 14, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specifications to allow the main steam line
isolation (SLI) circuitry to be inoperable when both Main Steam
Isolation Valves (MSIVs) are closed and de-activated.
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 amendment would allow the SLI instrumentation to be
inoperable when both MSIVs are already closed and de-activated. When
both MSIVs are closed, the SLI function is already accomplished and
the SLI instrumentation is no longer needed. The proposed amendment
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant or a functional
change in the methods used to respond to any evaluated plant
accident. The isolation function is accomplished either by SLI
instrumentation or manually closing the MSIVs. No new or different
equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is being
removed or modified. The proposed amendment would not alter the
parameters within which the plant is normally operated or the
setpoints which initiate protective or mitigative actions.
With both MSIVs closed, the SLI instrumentation is not required
to be operable since its safety function has already been
accomplished. Addition of the proposed new footnote would not
adversely impact any of the previously evaluated accidents described
in the KPS [Kewaunee Power Station] USAR [Updated Safety Analysis
Report].
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant or a functional change in the methods used to respond to
plant accidents or transients. No new or different equipment is
being installed and no installed equipment is being removed or
modified. The proposed amendment would not alter the parameters
within which the plant is normally operated or the setpoints which
initiate protective or mitigative actions. The design function of
the SLI instrumentation would not be changed. With both MSIVs
closed, the safety function associated with the SLI instrumentation
has already been accomplished. Allowing the SLI instrumentation to
be inoperable when both
[[Page 34341]]
MSIVs are closed and de-activated does not functionally impact how
the plant would respond to any previously evaluated accidents. No
new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not
considered in the design and licensing bases are introduced by the
proposed amendment.
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.
Margin of safety is established through the design of the
systems, structures, and components, the parameters within which the
plant is operated, and the establishment of setpoints for the
actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The
proposed TS amendment does not adversely impact any plant structure,
system or component that is relied upon for accident mitigation. The
design of the SLI function is not affected by the proposed change.
Closure and de-activation of the MSIVs represents an increase in
functional margin as a deactivated valve has no opportunity to be
inadvertently opened. The proposed amendment also does not adversely
affect the setpoints or parameters under which the SLI
instrumentation is operated. Station operations and the SLI function
would not be adversely affected by the proposed change, because the
isolation function capability is maintained throughout the
applicable modes of operation. The proposed change does not alter
any design basis or safety limit established in the KPS USAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment to the KPS TS 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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50-336 and
50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut.
Date of amendment request: August 15, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3.1, ``Radiation Monitoring,''
TS 3.4.6.1, ``Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Systems,'' and
Surveillance Requirements 4.4.6.1, ``Reactor Coolant System Leakage
Detection Systems.'' Specifically, the proposed amendment would remove
credit for the gaseous radiation monitor for Reactor Coolant System
leakage detection. Improvements in nuclear fuel reliability over time
have resulted in the reduction of effectiveness of the monitors in
detecting very small leaks and very small changes in the leakrate. The
proposed change also addresses the condition when the remaining
monitoring systems are all inoperable.
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 has been evaluated and determined to not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change does not make any hardware changes
and does not alter the configuration of any plant system, structure
or component (SSC). The containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity
monitor is not credited for use in the initiation of any protective
functions. The proposed change only removes the containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor for meeting the operability
requirement for TS 3.4.6.1. Therefore, the probability of occurrence
of an accident is not increased. The TS will continue to require
diverse means of leakage detection equipment, thus ensuring that
leakage due to cracks would continue to be identified prior to
breakage and the plant shutdown accordingly. Additionally, the
function of this equipment is not modeled in the MPS2 or MPS3
probabilistic risk assessment and therefore its removal from the
Technical Specifications has no impact on core damage frequency or
large early release frequency. Therefore, the consequences of an
accident are not increased.
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 does not involve the use or installation of
new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be
operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system
interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The
proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the
design and licensing bases. The proposed change does not affect any
SSC associated with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation,
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of 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 does not make any alteration to any RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] leakage detection components. The proposed
change only removes the gaseous channel of the containment
atmosphere radioactivity monitor for meeting the operability
requirement for TS 3.4.6.1. The proposed amendment continues to
require diverse means of leakage detection equipment with capability
to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not required by TS,
additional diverse means of leakage detection capability are
available. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, DNC [Dominion Nuclear Connecticut] concludes
that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, and a
finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
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.
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: March 18, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the technical specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR)
numbering for two engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS)
instrumentation SRs that were revised in previous license amendments
issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. The revised
numbering scheme in the previous amendments introduced inconsistencies
within TS 3.3.2. In addition, the proposed amendments request an
extension of the 120-day period for implementation of the changes to
SRs 3.3.2.6 and 3.3.2.7, approved in the previous license amendments,
to 30 days following approval of the proposed amendments.
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
[[Page 34342]]
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed revision to the numbering of two ESFAS
instrumentation SRs and extension of a previously approved license
amendment implementation period are purely administrative in nature,
and as such, do not increase the probability of any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not
modify any system interface, nor will they affect the probability of
any event initiators. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Since the proposed changes are purely administrative, the
changes will not alter or prevent structures, systems, and
components from performing their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event, within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed amendment does not change the response of the
plant to any accidents and has no impact on the reliability of the
ESFAS signals. The ESFAS will remain highly reliable, and the
proposed changes will not result in an increase in the risk of plant
operation. There will be no degradation in the performance of, or an
increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, there will not be an increase in the consequences of any
accidents.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed revision to the numbering of two ESFAS
instrumentation SRs and extension of a previously approved license
amendment implementation period are purely administrative in nature.
There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety
function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of
plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in physical
alteration to any plant system nor will there be any change in the
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety
function. There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident
analysis assumptions.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any [accident] previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed revision to the numbering of two ESFAS
instrumentation SRs and extension of a previously approved license
amendment implementation period are purely administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the acceptance
criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there a change to any safety
analysis limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined nor will there be any effect
on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of
protection functions. There will be no impact on the departure from
nucleate boiling limits, fuel centerline temperature, or any other
margin of safety.
Redundant ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity with regard
of the signals that provide engineered safety features actuation is
also maintained. All signals credited as primary or secondary, and
all operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain
the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in
a configuration outside the design basis. Therefore, 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.
FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa.
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add
a Surveillance Requirement to Technical Specification (TS) Section
3.7.2, ``RWS [River Water Supply] System and UHS [Ultimate Heat
Sink],'' to require surveillances of the Cedar River depth to assure
UHS 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.
Technical Specifications currently require surveillance of river
level elevation and temperature. These surveillance requirements are
unchanged. Adding an additional surveillance requirement to measure
river depth will not adversely impact the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
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.
Adding TS Surveillance Requirements to measure river depth does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated and does not represent a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not alter or eliminate any existing
requirements. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
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.
Per the DAEC [Duane Arnold Energy Center] UFSAR [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report], adequate river flow into the lntake
Structure must be available to meet emergency cooling requirements
and assure UHS OPERABILITY. Adequate river flow can be assured by
requiring a minimum river depth of 6.5 inches or greater at the
lntake Structure. The proposed Surveillance Requirements ensure
margin to the minimum flow by specifying a depth of 12 inches or
greater at the lntake Structure. Adding additional surveillance
requirements for river depth will not adversely impact any 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: Marjan Mashhadi, Florida Power & Light
Company, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 220, Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska.
Date of amendment request: April 22, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) 2.7,
[[Page 34343]]
``Electrical Systems,'' Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 2.7(2)j.
to clarify that a single period of operability for one emergency diesel
generator (DG) is limited to 7 consecutive days and specify that the
cumulative total time of inoperability for both DGs during any calendar
month cannot exceed 7 days.
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 changes clarify the AOT [allowed outage time] of TS
2.7(2)j for DG inoperability but are not less restrictive. Allowed
outage times and editorial changes such as these 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 AOT are no different
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing AOT.
As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes do 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 changes do 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 changes do 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 changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore,
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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do 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 changes do not alter any assumptions made in
the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes clarifying the AOT of TS 2.7(2)j for DG
inoperability do 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 these changes. The proposed changes will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
Therefore, 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: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey.
Date of amendment request: May 16, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revises the Oyster
Creek Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.5.A.6, ``Primary Containment.''
Specifically, the amendment revises the actions taken and applicability
of the requirement to inert the primary containment atmosphere to less
than 4 percent oxygen (O2) concentration. Additionally, the
amendment introduces definitions for thermal power and rated thermal
power including changes for their consistent use within the TSs.
Date of issuance: May 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 266.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (73 FR
13023). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN
50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units
No. 2, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Date of application for amendments: November 14, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by adding Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.0.8 on the inoperability of snubbers using the Consolidated
Line Item Improvement Process. The amendments also made conforming
changes to TS LCO 3.0.1.
[[Page 34344]]
These amendments are consistent with the NRC-approved Industry/
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler No. 372, Revision 4,
``Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.''
Date of issuance: May 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--170, Unit 2--170, and Unit 3--170.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The
amendments revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5217). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina.
Date of application for amendments: February 15, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorize a change
to the UFSAR requiring an inspection of each ice condenser within 24
hours of experiencing a seismic event greater than or equal to an
operating basis earthquake within the 5-week period after ice basket
replenishment has been completed to confirm that adverse ice fallout
has not occurred which could impede the ability of the ice condenser
lower inlet doors to open. This action would be taken, in lieu of
requiring a 5-week waiting period following ice basket replenishment,
prior to beginning ascension to power operations.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 241, 236.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (73
FR 10302). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana.
Date of amendment request: November 15, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removed Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.8.3.6 from the Technical Specifications and
relocated the requirement to a licensee-controlled document. SR 3.8.3.6
requires the Emergency Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Storage Tank to be
drained, sediment removed, and cleaned on a 10-year interval.
Date of issuance: June 2, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 160.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (72
FR 74357). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania.
Date of application for amendment: June 27, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments consist of changes
to the Technical Specifications of each unit to delete the operability
and surveillance requirements for the drywell air temperature and
suppression chamber air temperature. These post-accident monitoring
instrumentation requirements are being re-located to the Limerick
Generating Station Technical Requirements Manual.
Date of issuance: May 29, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 191 and 152.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. These amendments
revised the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51860). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2, Oswego County, New York.
Date of application for amendment: May 31, 2007, as supplemented by
letter dated January 7, 2008.
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: May 29, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
120 days.
Amendment No.: 125.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-69: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR
41786).
The supplement dated January 7, 2008, 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 May 29, 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
[[Page 34345]]
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.
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
[[Page 34346]]
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 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.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and
50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia.
[[Page 34347]]
Date of application for amendments: April 14, 2008, as supplemented
on May 6, 2008.
Brief Description of amendments: 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 issuance: May 16, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 258.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendment changed the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: 73 FR 22443 (April 25,
2008) and Daily Press (May 12 and May 13, 2008). No comments have been
received.
The supplement dated May 6, 2008 requested approval of the
amendment based on exigent circumstances, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the original proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed
NSHC determination.
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 16, 2008.
The Daily Press notice provided an opportunity to submit comments
by May 15, 2008. No comments have been received. The April 25, 2008
notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing by June 24,
2008, but the Daily Press Notice stated that ``an opportunity for a
hearing will be published at a later date.'' The Daily Press Notice
should have stated that ``an opportunity for a hearing was previously
published.''
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 2008.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-13218 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P