[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46926-46935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18185]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 July 17, 2008 to July 30, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 29, 2008 (73 FR 43953).
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 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
[[Page 46927]]
leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC 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
[[Page 46928]]
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
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.
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.
Date of amendment request: June 9, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
adopt the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification (STS) change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The amendments would:
(1) (a) Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS
3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' (except for Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station), and (b) revise the TS surveillance requirement in
TS 4.2, ``Reactivity Control,'' Specification D (for Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station); (2) clarify the requirement to fully
insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for
operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ``Source Range
Monitoring Instrumentation'' (Clinton Power Station only); and (3)
revise Example 1.4-3 in section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension (Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station excluded).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of
opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007
(72 FR 63935), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-475 using
the NRC's consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for
amending licensees' TSs, which included a model safety evaluation (SE)
and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination.
The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the
models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal
Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), which included the
resolution of public comments on the model SE. The August 16, 2007,
notice of availability referenced the November 13, 2007, notice. The
licensee has affirmed the applicability of the November 13, 2007, NSHC
determination in its application.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1,
''Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1, modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) Revise TS testing frequency for
surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, for the subject
plants, except Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, and the TS
surveillance requirement in TS 4.2, Specification D for Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, (2) clarify the requirement to fully insert
all insertable control rods for the limiting condition for operation
(LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ''Source Range Monitoring
Instrumentation'' (NUREG-1434 only), and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in
Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25
surveillance test interval extension. This change does not affect
either the design or operation of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism
(CRDM). The affected surveillance and Required Action is not considered
to be an initiator of any analyzed event. Revising the frequency for
notch testing fully withdrawn control rods will not affect the ability
of the control rods to shutdown the reactor if required. Given the
extremely reliable nature of the CRDM, as demonstrated through industry
operating experience, the proposed monthly notch testing of all
withdrawn control rods continues to provide a high level of confidence
in control rod operability. Hence, the overall intent of the notch
testing surveillances, which is to detect either random stuck control
rods or identify generic concerns affecting control rod operability, is
not significantly affected by the proposed change. Requiring
[[Page 46929]]
control rods to be fully inserted when the associated SRM is inoperable
is consistent with other similar requirements and will increase the
shutdown margin. The clarification of Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4,
``Frequency,'' is an editorial change made to provide consistency with
other discussions in Section 1.4. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident
after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1, are no different than the
consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
TSTF-475, Revision 1, will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency
in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the requirement
to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitoring
Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4,
``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance
test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November
2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the
surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475,
Revision 1, do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests
involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bradley Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina.
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) section 3.7.5a to restore the
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Main Reservoir minimum level to the value
allowed by the initial operating license as a result of improvements
made to the Emergency Service Water system. The change will allow
continued plant operation to a Main Reservoir minimum level of 206 feet
(ft) Mean Sea Level (MSL) in Modes 1-4, versus the current minimum
allowed level of 215 ft MSL.
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 to decrease the UHS Main Reservoir minimum
level does not alter the function, design, or operating practices
for plant systems or components. The UHS is utilized to remove heat
loads from plant systems during normal and accident conditions. This
function is not expected or postulated to result in the generation
of any accident and continues to adequately satisfy the associated
safety functions with the proposed change. Therefore, the
probability of an accident presently evaluated in the safety
analyses will not be increased because the UHS function does not
have the potential to be the source of an accident.
The heat loads that the UHS is designed to accommodate have been
evaluated for functionality with the reduced level requirement. The
result of these evaluations is that there is existing margin
associated with the systems that utilize the UHS for normal and
accident conditions. This margin is sufficient to accommodate the
postulated normal and accident heat loads with the proposed change
to the UHS. Since the safety functions of the UHS are maintained,
the systems that ensure acceptable offsite dose consequences will
continue to operate as designed. 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 proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant
operation and will not result in a change to the design function of
any structure, system, or component that is used for accident
mitigation. By allowing the proposed change in the UHS Main
Reservoir level, only the parameters for UHS operation are changed,
while the safety functions of the UHS and systems that provide heat
sink capability continue to be maintained. The UHS function provides
accident mitigation capabilities and does not reflect the potential
for accident generation. Therefore, the possibility for creating a
new or different kind of accident is not feasible because the UHS is
only utilized for heat removal functions that are not a potential
source for accident generation.
The proposed change does not result in any credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the original design and licensing basis. The engineering analyses
performed to support the proposed change demonstrate that affected
safety-related systems and components are capable of performing
their intended safety functions at the reduced Main Reservoir level.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change has been evaluated for systems that are
needed to support accident mitigation functions as well as normal
operational evolutions. Operational margins were found to exist in
the systems that utilize the UHS capabilities such that this
proposed change will not result in the loss of any safety function
necessary for normal or accident conditions. While operating margins
have been reduced by the proposed changes, safety margins have been
maintained as assumed in the accident analyses for postulated
events. 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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374,
LaSalle
[[Page 46930]]
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Date of amendment request: May 2, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and
Starting Air,'' to replace the numerical volume requirements for stored
diesel fuel oil inventory with requirements that state that volumes
equivalent to seven days and six days of fuel oil are available. Exelon
Generation Company is requesting to move the diesel fuel oil numerical
volumes equivalent to seven-day and six-day supplies to the TS Bases.
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 TS change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the numerical volume of diesel
fuel oil required to support seven-day operation of the onsite DGs
[diesel generators], and the numerical volume equivalent to a six-
day supply, to licensee control. The specific volumes of fuel oil
equivalent to a seven-day and six day supply is calculated
considering the DG manufacturer's fuel oil consumption rates and the
energy content of ULSD [ultra low sulfur diesel] fuel. Moreover,
these calculations consider the entire range of API [American
Petroleum Industry] gravities allowed by the LSCS [LaSalle County
Station] Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program. The requirement to meet
UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] 9.5.4.1.1.d, diesel
loading assumptions, maintain a seven-day supply, and the actions
taken when the volume of fuel oil available is less than a six-day
supply have not changed. These requirements remain consistent with
the assumptions in the accident analyses, and neither the
probability, nor the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated will be affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed TS change create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), or affect the control parameters governing unit
operation, or the response of plant equipment to transient
conditions. The proposed change is consistent with the safety
analysis assumptions.
Based on the above information, 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 TS change involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the numerical volumes of diesel
fuel oil required to support seven-day operation of the onsite DGs,
and the numerical volumes equivalent to a six-day supply, to
licensee control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel
fuel oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident analysis
assumptions, and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this
change.
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
requested amendments involve 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.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota.
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend
the Technical Specifications, revising existing Condition D of
Specification 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating,'' to: (1) Apply to two entire Low-Pressure Core Injection
(LPCI) subsystems being inoperable (currently, the Condition applies
when two LPCl subsystems are inoperable due to inoperable injection
paths); (2) add a new Condition E to provide a 72-hour completion time
when one Core Spray subsystem and one LPCl subsystem (or one or two
LPCl pump(s) are inoperable; (3) add a new Condition F to provide a 72-
hour completion time when both Core Spray subsystems are inoperable;
and (4) re-designate the Conditions and Required Actions (starting at
existing letter E) to reflect the insertion of new Conditions E and F
(i.e., these are purely editorial changes).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC).
The licensee's NSHC analysis is reproduced below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The low pressure Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystems
are designed to inject to reflood or to spray the core after any
size break up to and including a design basis Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA). The proposed changes to the Required Actions and
associated Completion Times do not change the conditions, operating
configurations, or minimum amount of operating equipment assumed in
the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No changes are proposed
to the manner in which the ECCS provides plant protection or which
would create new modes of plant operation.
The proposed changes will not affect the probability of any
event initiators. 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.
There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or
accident mitigation performance.
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.
There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. This
request does not affect the normal method of plant operation.
The proposed changes do not introduce new equipment, which could
create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats,
release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this request.
Therefore, the implementation of the proposed changes will not
create a possibility for an accident of a new or different type than
those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ECCS are designed with sufficient redundancy such that a
division of low pressure ECCS may be removed from service for
maintenance or testing. The remaining subsystems are capable of
providing water and removing heat loads to satisfy the Updated
Safety Analysis Report requirements for accident mitigation or unit
safe shutdown.
There will be no change to the manner in which the safety limits
or limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be
any change to those plant systems necessary to assure the
accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no change to
post-LOCA peak clad temperatures.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 46931]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
the NRC staff's own analysis above, it appears that the three standards
of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
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].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina.
Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated November 9, 2007, and April 1, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler
TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' This technical
specification improvement was initially made available in the Federal
Register by the NRC on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022).
Date of issuance: July 23, 2008.
Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 180 days.
Amendment No: 219.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment
revises the Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49570). The supplements dated November 9, 2007, and April 1, 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 is contained in a
safety evaluation dated July 23, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas.
Date of application for amendment: March 13, 2008, as supplemented
by letter dated July 1, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.7, ``Reactor Coolant System
Chemistry,'' to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The change is
consistent with the NUREG 1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications for
Combustion Engineering Plants.''
Date of issuance: July 23, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 280.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR
25039). The supplement dated July 1, 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 is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 23, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois.
Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,
Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois.
Date of application for amendments: August 1, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated February 26 and May 1, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
technical specification allowable value (AV) for the Reactor Protection
System (RPS) Instrumentation Function 10, ``Turbine Condenser Vacuum--
Low,'' specified in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System
Instrumentation,'' for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3
(DNPS), and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The
amendments also revise the Channel Functional Test and Channel
Calibration Surveillance Test Interval (STI) for DNPS TS Table 3.3.1.1-
1, Function 10. As part of the DNPS STI revision, surveillance
requirement 3.3.1.10, ``Channel Calibration,'' which is specific to the
Turbine Condenser Vacuum--Low instrument function, is deleted since it
is no longer applicable.
Date of issuance: July 22, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 227, 219, 239, 234.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29 and
DPR-30. The amendments revise the Technical Specifications and
Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR
[[Page 46932]]
68214) The February 26 and May 1, 2008, supplements contained
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The
Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 22, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin.
Date of application for amendments: March 31, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments to the Technical
Specification delete the definition of E Bar and replace the current
limits on reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity with a
new limit on RCS noble gas activity. The noble gas activity is now
based on dose equivalent Xenon-133 definition and replaces the E Bar
definition. The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0.
Date of issuance: July 14, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 233, 238.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR
25041). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 14, 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 (NMP-2), Oswego County, New York.
Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2007, as supplemented
on June 19, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification
(TS) Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the NMP2
TSs related to control room envelope habitability in TS section 3.7.2,
``Control Room Envelope Filtration (CREF) System,'' and TS section 5.5,
``Programs and Manuals.'' The amendment also adds a license condition
to support implementation of the TS changes.
Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
120 days.
Amendment No.: 126
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-69: Amendment revised
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51864). The supplemental letter dated June 19, 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 July 15, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York.
Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2007, as supplemented
on June 19, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment establishes more
effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative
requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the control room
envelope in accordance with the NRC-approved Technical Specification
(TS) Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, and changes the NMP1
TSs related to control room envelope habitability in TS Section 3.4.5,
``Control Room Air Treatment System,'' and TS Section 6.5, ``Programs
and Manuals.'' The amendment also adds a license condition to support
implementation of the TS changes.
Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
120 days.
Amendment No.: 195.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51863). The supplemental letter dated June 19, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 15, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306,
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota.
Date of application for amendments: July 19, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated June 25, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise surveillance
requirements for the duration of the heater tests for technical
specification (TS) 3.6.9, ``Shield Building Ventilation System
(SBVS),'' TS 3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Special Ventilation System
(ABSVS),'' TS 3.7.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System
(SFPSVS),'' and the frequency for performance of filter tests in TS
5.5.9, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).
Date of issuance: July 18, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 186, 176.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (72 FR
57355). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2008. The information
contained in the June 25, 2008, supplement is clarifying in nature and
does not change either the scope of the amendment request or the no
significant hazards consideration determination.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas.
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated April 29 and May 27, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments added a new license
condition (12) for Unit 1 and new license condition (10) for Unit 2 on
the control room envelope (CRE) habitability program. In addition, the
amendments revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements
related to the habitability of the CRE in TS 3.7.7, ``Control Room
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System (CRMCFS),'' and added the new
Control Room Envelope Habitability Program to TS Section 6.8,
``Administrative Controls--Procedures, Programs, and Manuals.'' These
changes are consistent with the NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF)
[[Page 46933]]
Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3,
``Control Room Envelope Habitability.'' The availability of the TS
improvement was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007
(72 FR 2022), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process.
Date of issuance: July 29, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--185; Unit 2--172.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45460). The supplemental letters dated April 29 and May 27, 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 amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 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 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
[[Page 46934]]
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 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
[[Page 46935]]
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, 2085 Attention 2,:
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.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50 390, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee.
Date of amendment request: July 24, 2008.
Description of amendment request: This amendment allows the
implementation of a temporary alteration that will be used to restore
Train A of the Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) to a functional
condition and to provide additional time to restore the operability of
at least one of the inoperable ERCW pumps. Additionally, this amendment
adds a temporary CONDITION and a Note to Technical Specification 3.7.8,
``Essential Raw Cooling Water,'' reflecting the restoration of
functionality of Train A ERCW by the temporary alteration.
Date of issuance: July 24, 2008.
Effective date: July 24, 2008, and shall be implemented as of the
date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 69.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications and License.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding
of emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated July 24, 2008.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
6A West Tower, ET 11H, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-18185 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P