[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76407-76420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-29450]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 76408]]
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 November 20, 2008 to December 3, 2008. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 2, 2008 (73 FR 73351).
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. 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 documents
related to these actions 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.
[[Page 76409]]
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms 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.
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].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of amendments request: October 1, 2008.
Description of amendments request: The proposed amendment would
insert a requirement into the operating licenses of the Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, involving the reporting of
specified reactor vessel (RV) inservice inspection (ISI) information
and analyses as specified in Federal Register Notice (72 FR 56275),
dated October 3, 2007, ``Alternative Fracture Toughness Requirements
for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.'' This
amendment is a required part of a code relief request, submitted by the
licensee on October 1, 2008, to extend the RV ISI 10-year inspection
interval for RV weld examinations.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change, which adds a requirement within Calvert
Cliffs licenses to provide required information and analyses as
[[Page 76410]]
a supporting condition for extending the allowed reactor vessel ISI
interval, only involves the commitment to provide data obtained from
the reactor vessel ISI. This proposed change involves only the
submittal of generated data that will be used to verify the reactor
vessel has more than sufficient margin to prevent any pressurized
thermal shock event from occurring. This proposed change does not
involve any change to the design basis of the plant or of any
structure, system, or component. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence
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?
The proposed change, which adds a requirement within Calvert
Cliffs licenses to provide required information and analyses as a
supporting condition for extending the reactor vessel ISI interval,
only involves the commitment to provide data and analyses obtained
from the reactor vessel ISI. As such this proposed change does not
result in physical alteration to the plant configuration or make any
change to plant operation. As a result no new accident scenarios,
failure mechanisms, or single failures are introduced. Therefore,
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed change, which adds a requirement within Calvert
Cliffs licenses, to provide required information and analyses as a
supporting condition for extending the allowed reactor vessel ISI
interval, only involves the commitment to provide data and analyses
obtained from the reactor vessel ISI. The submitted data may be used
to verify the condition of the reactor vessel meets all required
standards to ensure sufficient safety margin is maintained against
the occurrence of a pressurized thermal shock event during the
expanded time interval between reactor vessel ISIs. The proposed
change is administrative in nature and is not related to any margin
[of] safety. 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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street,
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.
Entergy Operations Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 18, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable
snubbers by relocating the current TS 3.7.8, ``Snubbers,'' to the
Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) and adding Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The proposed amendment would also make
conforming changes to TS LCO 3.0.1. In conjunction with the proposed
changes, the TS Bases for LCO 3.0.8 will be added, consistent with
Bases Control Program, as described in Section 6.16 of the TS.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68412), on possible
license amendments adopting TSTF-372 using the NRC's CLIIP for amending
licensee's 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 May 4, 2005. (70 FR 23252), which included the resolution
of public comments on the model SE. The May 4, 2005, notice of
availability referenced the November 4, 2004, notice. The licensee has
affirmed the applicability of the following 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[s] [Do] Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change[s] [allow] a delay time for entering a
supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an
inoperable snubber if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated
seismic event requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the
vast majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at
all. The consequences of an accident while relying on allowance
provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8 are no different than the consequences
of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect
without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8. Therefore, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly
affected by [these] change[s]. The addition of a requirement to assess
and manage the risk introduced by [these] change[s] will further
minimize possible concerns. Therefore, [these] change[s] [do] not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change[s] [Do] Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated
The proposed change[s] [do] not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to inoperable snubbers, if risk is assessed
and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will
not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident
whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk
introduced by [these] change[s] will further minimize possible
concerns. Thus, [these] change[s] [do] not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change[s] [Do] Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change[s] [allow] a delay time for entering a
supported system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an
inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated
seismic event requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for the
vast majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the
proposed TS changes was assessed following the three tiered approach
recommended in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.177. A bounding risk assessment
was performed to justify the proposed TS changes. This application of
LCO 3.0.8 is predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk
assessment and the management of plant risk. The net change to the
margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, [these] change[s] [do]
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 76411]]
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 (BVPS-2), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: November 7, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the method used to calculate the available net positive suction
head (NPSH) for the BVPS-2 recirculation spray (RS) pumps as described
in the BVPS-2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). BVPS-2
UFSAR would take credit for containment overpressure by allowing for
the difference between containment total pressure and the vapor
pressure of the water in the containment sump in the available NPSH
calculation.
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 change to the method used to calculate available NPSH for
the RS pumps will not affect the probability of an accident because
the RS pumps are not used during normal plant operations and cannot
initiate an accident.
Successful operation of at least one train of RS pumps is
required in order to demonstrate that containment and fuel cladding
design basis limits are not exceeded. The design basis accident
currently assumes a breach of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
There is no impact to the fuel cladding since the proposed change
does not affect performance of the emergency core cooling systems.
Successful operation of the RS pumps depends on adequate NPSH being
available to support RS pump performance. The change in the
methodology will result in an increase of the NPSH available to the
RS pumps as calculated in the safety analysis. This will increase
the calculated NPSH margin because the required NPSH to the RS pumps
will not change due to the methodology change. Because the available
NPSH remains adequate, with margin to NPSH requirements, acceptable
RS pump performance will be assured and the design basis limits for
containment pressure and fuel cladding will not be exceeded and the
consequences of an accident will not be increased.
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 change to the method used to calculate available NPSH for
the RS pumps will not create the possibility of a new accident
because the operation of the plant or the RS pumps is not changed.
The RS pumps are not used during normal plant operations and cannot
initiate an accident. A different kind of accident will not be
created because the proposed calculation method will produce an NPSH
value that will ensure proper operation of the pumps and will not
result in any new failure modes of the RS pumps.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will 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 change to the method used to calculate available NPSH for
the RS pumps will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety because the change does not reduce the NPSH margin to the RS
pump required NPSH. The only controlling numerical value pertaining
to available NPSH of the RS pumps that is established in the UFSAR
is a lower limit specified in the UFSAR, referred to as the required
NPSH for the RS pumps. The required NPSH limit will not be altered
as a result of the proposed calculation method, and the required
NPSH will continue to be maintained under the applicable accident
scenario.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main
Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: September 25, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specifications, Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, which show
allowable locations for nuclear fuel in the spent fuel pool storage
racks. The figures currently show two different allowable storage
patterns for four of the storage rack modules. I&M proposes to modify
these two figures such that fuel may be located in any of these four
individual modules in accordance with either figure to allow continued
placement of new and intermediate burn-up fuel in the spent fuel pool
as the storage racks approach capacity.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
NRC staff has performed its own analysis, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The accidents and events of concern involving fuel located in
the spent fuel pool storage racks are a criticality accident, a fuel
handling accident, and inadequate decay heat removal. The proposed
change will not increase the probability of a criticality accident
because analyses demonstrate that sub-criticality will be maintained
for the fuel storage considerations allowed by the change. The
proposed change will not increase the probability of a fuel handling
accident because it does not affect the manner in which fuel is
moved or handled. The proposed change will decrease the number of
fuel moves needed for upcoming refueling outages. The proposed
change will not increase the probability of inadequate decay heat
removal because thermal-hydraulic analyses demonstrate adequate heat
removal will remain valid for the storage configurations allowed by
the change. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of a previously
evaluated accident will not be significantly increased.
The proposed change does not adversely affect the ability to
perform the intended safety functions of any structure, system, or
component (SSC) credited for mitigating a criticality accident, a
fuel handling accident, or inadequate decay heat removal. Therefore,
the consequences of a previously evaluated accident will not be
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the design function or
operation of any SSC. The proposed change does not affect the
capability of the SSCs involved with the storage of fuel in the
spent fuel pool to
[[Page 76412]]
perform their function. As a result, no new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators are created. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margins of safety involved with the storage of fuel in the
spent fuel pool are the margins associated with criticality,
mitigation of a fuel handling accident, and assurance of adequate
decay heat removal. The proposed amendment involves no change in the
capability of any SSC that maintains these margins. Therefore, there
is no significant reduction in a margin of safety as a result of the
proposed amendment.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis and, based on its own analysis, 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: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification 5.6.3, ``Radioactive Effluent Release
Report,'' by changing the required annual submittal date for the report
from ``within 90 days of January 1'' (i.e., prior to April 1), to prior
to May 1. The change is consistent with the requirements for the
Radioactive Effluent Release Report submittal date identified in
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler Number 152 (TSTF-152),
``Revise Reporting Requirements to be Consistent with 10 CFR 20,''
approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in March 1997.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
NRC staff has performed its own analysis, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature. The date of the
submittal of the Radioactive Effluent Release Report is not an
initiator of any analyzed event. Similarly, the date of submission
does not affect the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change does not physically alter the plant
or affect plant operation.
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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature. It revises the
date by which the Radioactive Effluent Release Report is required to
be submitted to the NRDC. Revision of the submittal date of the
report does not affect any accident initiator or cause any new
accident precursors to be created. The proposed change does not
affect the types or amounts of radioactive effluents released or
cumulative occupational radiological exposures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. There are no
margins of safety associated with the submittal date for the
Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis and, based on its own analysis, 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: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: October 9, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
support a proposed change to the inservice inspection program that is
based on topical report WCAP-16168-NP-A, Revision 2, ``Risk-Informed
Extension of the Reactor Vessel Inservice Inspection Interval.'' The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety evaluation approving
the topical report requires licensees to amend their licenses to
require that the information and analyses requested in Section (e) of
the final 10 CFR 50.61a (or the proposed 10 CFR 50.61a, given in 72 FR
56275 prior to issuance of the final 10 CFR 50.61a) be submitted for
NRC staff review and approval within 1 year of completing the required
reactor vessel weld inspection. I&M proposes to add a new license
condition to provide this information.
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 will revise the license to require the
submission of information and analyses to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) following completion of each American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI, Category B-A and B-D
Reactor Vessel weld inspection. Submittal of the information and
analyses can have no effect on the consequences of an accident or
the probability of an accident because the submission of information
is not related to the operation of the plant or any equipment, the
programs and procedures used to operate the plant, or the evaluation
of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will only affect the requirement to submit
information and analyses when specified inspections are performed.
There are no changes to plant equipment, operating characteristics
or conditions, programs or failures. There are no new accident
initiators or precursors.
Therefore, 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 will revise the license to require the
submission of information and analyses to the NRC following
completion of each ASME Code, Section XI, Category B-A and B-D
Reactor Vessel weld inspection which does not affect any Limiting
Conditions for Operation used to establish the margin of safety. The
requirement to submit information and analyses is an administrative
tool to assure the NRC has the ability to independently review
information developed by the licensee.
[[Page 76413]]
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: October 7, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
insert a requirement into the operating license of the Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant involving the reporting of specified reactor vessel (RV)
inservice inspection (ISI) information and analyses as specified in
Federal Register Notice (72 FR 56275), dated October 3, 2007,
``Alternative Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against
Pressurized Thermal Shock Events.'' This amendment is a required part
of a code relief request, submitted by the licensee on October 3, 2008,
to extend the RV ISI 10-year inspection interval.
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. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change, which adds a requirement within the Ginna
license, to provide required information and analyses as a
supporting condition for extending the allowed reactor vessel ISI
interval, only involves the commitment to provide data obtained from
the reactor vessel ISI. This proposed change involves only the
submittal of generated data that will be used to verify the reactor
vessel has more than sufficient margin to prevent any pressurized
thermal shock event from occurring. This proposed change does not
involve any change to the design basis of the plant or of any
structure, system, or component. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change, which adds a requirement within the Ginna
license to provide required information and analyses as a supporting
condition for extending the reactor vessel ISI interval, only
involves the commitment to provide data and analyses obtained from
the reactor vessel ISI. As such this proposed change does not result
in physical alteration to the plant configuration or make any change
to plant operation. As a result no new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or single-failures are introduced. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed change, which adds a requirement within the Ginna
license, to provide required information and analyses as a
supporting condition for extending the allowed reactor vessel ISI
interval, only involves the commitment to provide data and analyses
obtained from the reactor vessel ISI. The submitted data will be
used to verify the condition of the reactor vessel meets all
required standards to ensure a sufficient safety margin is
maintained against the occurrence of a pressurized thermal shock
event during the expanded time interval between reactor vessel ISIs.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and is not related
to any margin to safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street, 17 Floor,
Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark G. Kowal.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 8, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specifications (TS) by the adoption of Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-374,
Revision 0, to modify TS by relocating references to specific American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for fuel oil testing
to licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate criteria to the
``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil. The proposed
change was described in the Notice of Availability published in the
Federal Register on April 21, 2006 (71 FR 20735).
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 (NSHC) by incorporating by reference the proposed NSHC
determination (NSHCD) presented in the Federal Register notice on
February 22, 2006 (71 FR 9179), which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a
licensee-controlled document. Requirements to perform testing in
accordance with applicable ASTM standards are retained in the TS as
are requirements to perform surveillances of both new and stored
diesel fuel oil. Future changes to the licensee-controlled document
will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59,
``Changes, tests and experiments,'' to ensure that such changes do
not result in more than a minimal increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the
``clear and bright'' test used to establish the acceptability of new
fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been
expanded to recognize more rigorous testing of water and sediment
content. Relocating the specific ASTM standard references from the
TS to a licensee-controlled document and allowing a water and
sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability
of new fuel oil will not affect nor degrade the ability of the
emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety
function. Fuel oil quality will continue to meet ASTM requirements.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
[[Page 76414]]
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a
licensee-controlled document. In addition, the ``clear and bright''
test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use
prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a
water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the
acceptability of new fuel oil. The 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 requirements retained in the TS continue to require
testing of the diesel fuel oil to ensure the proper functioning of
the DGs.
Therefore, the changes do 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 changes relocate the specific ASTM standard
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a
licensee-controlled document. Instituting the proposed changes will
continue to ensure the use of applicable ASTM standards to evaluate
the quality of both new and stored fuel oil designated for use in
the emergency DGs. Changes to the licensee-controlled document are
performed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. This
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and
ensures that diesel fuel oil testing is conducted such that there is
no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The ``clear and bright'' test used to establish the
acceptability of new fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage
tanks has been expanded to allow a water and sediment content test
to be performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil. The
margin of safety provided by the DGs is unaffected by the proposed
changes since there continue to be TS requirements to ensure fuel
oil is of the appropriate quality for emergency DG use. The proposed
changes provide the flexibility needed to improve fuel oil sampling
and analysis methodologies while maintaining sufficient controls to
preserve the current margins 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie Wong.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-280, Surry Power
Station, Unit No. 1, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: October 14, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change includes a
one-cycle revision to the Surry Power Station, Unit No. 1 (Surry 1)
technical specifications (TSs). Specifically, TS 6.4.Q, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 6.6.A.3, ``Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report,'' will be revised to incorporate an interim
alternate repair criterion into the provisions for SG tube repair for
use during the Surry 1 2009 spring refueling outage and the subsequent
operating cycle.
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.
Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed
changes only affect the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB), and locked
rotor evaluations. Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause
a compressive axial load to act on the tube. Therefore, since the
LOCA tends to force the tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it
out, it is not a factor in this amendment request.
Another faulted load consideration is a safe shutdown earthquake
(SSE); however, the seismic analysis of Model F steam generators has
shown that axial loading of the tubes is negligible during an SSE.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress
corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below 17 inches from the TTS [top of the
tubesheet] is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the
limited crack opening, permitted by the tubesheet constraint.
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from
cracks within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural margins of the steam
generator tubes is maintained by limiting the allowable ligament
size for a circumferential crack to remain in service to 203 degrees
below 17 inches from the TTS for the subsequent operating cycle.
Tube rupture is precluded for cracks in the hydraulic expansion
region due to the constraint provided by the tubesheet. The
potential for tube pullout is mitigated by limiting the allowable
crack size to 203 degrees for the subsequent operating cycle. These
allowable crack sizes take into account eddy current uncertainty and
crack growth rate. It has been shown that a circumferential crack
with an azimuthal extent of 203 degrees for the 18 month SG tubing
eddy current inspection interval meet the performance criteria of
NEI 97-06, Rev. 2, ``Steam Generator Program Guidelines'' and
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam
Generator Tubes.'' Therefore, the margin against tube burst/pullout
is maintained during normal and postulated accident conditions and
the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequence of a SGTR.
The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure
of a SG tube as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for a SLB
event. SLB leakage is limited by leakage flow restrictions resulting
from the leakage path above potential cracks through the tube-to-
tubesheet crevice. The leak rate during postulated accident
conditions (including locked rotor) has been shown to remain within
the accident analysis assumptions for all axial or circumferentially
oriented cracks occurring 17 inches below the top of the tubesheet.
Since normal operating leakage is limited to 150 gpd [gallons per
day], the attendant accident condition leak rate, assuming all
leakage to be from indications below 17 inches from the top of the
tubesheet, would be bounded by 470 gpd. This value is within the
accident analysis assumptions for the limiting design basis accident
for Surry, which is the postulated SLB event.
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI-97-06, Rev.
2 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms
that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Tube bundle integrity is expected to be maintained for all plant
conditions upon implementation of the interim alternate repair
criteria. The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment
or any change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing
equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
Therefore, based on the above evaluation, 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions.
NEI 97-06, Rev. 2 and RG 1.121 are used as the basis in the
development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology
for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations
are maintained within acceptable limits. RG
[[Page 76415]]
1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting GDC
14, 15, 31, and 32 by reducing the probability and consequences of
an SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe
conditions of tube wall degradation beyond which tubes with
unacceptable cracking, as established by inservice inspection,
should be removed from service or repaired, the probability and
consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on
loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of
Section III of the ASME Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking in a tube or the tube-to-
tubesheet weld, References 2 and 4 [of the application] define a
length of remaining tube ligament that provides the necessary
resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces (with
applicable safety factors applied). Additionally, it is shown that
application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria will
not result in unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all
plant conditions.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do
not result in any reduction of margin with respect to plant safety
as defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or bases of
the plant Technical Specifications.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: October 9, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the
technical specifications (TSs) for consistency with the assumptions of
the current Alternate Source Term dose analysis of record, performed in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
Section 50.67, and the results of non-pressurized main control room/
emergency switchgear room (MCR/ESGR) envelope boundary tracer gas
testing. The proposed change removes the MCR Bottled Air System
requirements from the TSs.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The MCR Bottled Air System is not an initiator or precursor
to any accident previously evaluated, and is not credited as a
success path for dose mitigation in the event of a DBA [design-basis
accident]. MCR/ESGR envelope isolation and emergency ventilation
continue to be available consistent with accident analyses
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the requirements for MCR/ESGR
envelope isolation or the MCR/ESGR Emergency Ventilation System
during accident conditions. No physical modifications to the plant
are being made (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), and no significant changes in the methods governing
normal plant operation are being implemented. Also, the proposed
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is
consistent with those assumptions. Therefore, the proposed TS change
does 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 TS change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined, and the dose analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected. The proposed change does not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis
and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut
down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
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,
[[Page 76416]]
(301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: November 9, 2007, as
supplemented by letter dated June 2, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications by relocating the requirement of Specification 3.8.a.7
to the licensee-controlled Technical Requirements Manual. Specification
3.8.a.7 specified that heavy loads greater than the weight of a fuel
assembly will not be transported over or placed in either spent fuel
pool when spent fuel is stored in that pool.
Date of issuance: November 20, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 200.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (72
FR 71706).
The supplemental letter contained clarifying information, did not
change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination,
and did not expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Plant,
Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: May 5, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise renewed
facility operating license DPR-20 to remove license condition 2.F. The
license condition describes reporting requirements for exceeding the
facility steady-state reactor core power level described in license
condition 2.C.(1). The proposed change is consistent with the NRC
approved change notice published in the Federal Register on November 4,
2005 (70 FR 67202), announcing the availability of this improvement
through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
Date of issuance: November 20, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 233.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52417).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of application for amendment: August 3, 2007 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML072200448), as supplemented by letters dated May 16, 2008 (2 letters)
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML081480464 and ML081430105), July 23, 2008
(ADAMS Accession No. ML082070079), August 7, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML082270658), August 26, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082600594), and
September 3, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082490154).
Brief description of amendment: This amendment converts the current
technical specifications (CTSs) to the improved TSs (ITSs) and
relocates certain requirements to other licensee-controlled documents.
The ITSs are based on NUREG-1430, ``Standard Technical Specifications
(STS) Babcock and Wilcox Plants,'' Revision 3.0; ``NRC Final Policy
Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' dated July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132); and 10 CFR 50.36,
``Technical Specifications.'' Technical Specification Task Force
changes were also incorporated. The purpose of the conversion is to
provide clearer and more readily understandable requirements in the TSs
for DBNPS to ensure safe operation. In addition, the amendment includes
a number of issues that were considered beyond the scope of NUREG-1430.
Date of issuance: November 20, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment No.: 279.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (73 FR
29787-29791).
The supplements provided contained clarifying information and did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-335, St. Lucie Plant,
Unit No. 1, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: July 16, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated February 14, March 18, April 14, June 2, July 11, and
August 13, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: Amendment revised the facility's
operating bases to adopt the alternative source term as allowed in 10
CFR 50.67 and described in Regulatory Guide RG 1.183.
Date of issuance: November 26, 2008.
Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 9 months.
Amendment No.: 206.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49578). The supplements dated February 14, March 18, April 14, June 2,
July 11, and August 13, 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 November 26, 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 (NMP2), Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2007, as supplemented
on April 7 and September 8, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.3, ``Control Room Envelope Air Conditioning (AC)
System,'' by adding an Action statement to the Limiting Condition for
Operation. Specifically, the new Action statement allows 72 hours to
restore one control room AC subsystem to operable status and requires
verification that the control room temperature remains below 90 degrees
Fahrenheit every 4 hours during
[[Page 76417]]
the period of inoperability. This amendment adopts Nuclear Regulatory
Commission-approved TS Task Force (TSTF)-477, Revision 3, ``Add Action
Statement for Two Inoperable Control Room Air Conditioning
Subsystems.''
Date of issuance: November 24, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 128.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-069: Amendment revises
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2007 (72
FR 54477), as revised on September 24, 2008 (73 FR 55166). The
supplemental letters dated April 7 and September 8, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application and did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed. The
September 8, 2008, letter provided administrative changes to the
proposed TSs and a supplemental No Significant Hazards Consideration
determination as reflected in 73 FR 55166.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 24, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: April 22, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised (1) the
control rod notch surveillance frequency in Section 3.1.3, ``Control
Rod Operability,'' and (2) one example in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,''
to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval
extension. These changes were done pursuant to the previously approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-475,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM [Source Range Monitor]
Insert Control Rod Action,'' Revision 1.
Date of issuance: November 19, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 158.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52419).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment request: November 30, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated June 5 and November 14, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed TS changes will
provide operational flexibility supported by DC electrical subsystem
design upgrades that are in progress. These upgrades will provide
increased capacity batteries, additional battery chargers, and the
means to cross-connect DC subsystems while meeting all design battery
loading requirements. With these modifications in place, it will be
feasible to perform routine surveillances as well as battery
replacements online.
Date of issuance: November 28, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2--218; Unit 3--211.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR
25045). The supplement dated June 5 and November 14, 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 November 28, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: February 29, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed changes would modify
the Appendix A TS and the Appendix D Additional Conditions requirements
related to control room emergency ventilation systems to establish more
effective and appropriate actions to ensure the habitability of the
control room envelope. The change is based on Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3. The licensee proposed
revising action and surveillance requirements in TS 3.7.10, ``Control
Room Emergency Filtration System (CREFS)--Both Units Operating,'' TS
3.7.11, ``Control Room Emergency Filtration System (CREFS)--One Unit
Operating,'' TS 3.7.12, ``Control Room Emergency Filtration System
(CREFS)--Both Units Shutdown,'' and adding a new administrative
controls program in TS Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals.'' An
Additional Condition is also added regarding the schedule for
performance of the surveillance requirements. The purpose of the
changes is to ensure that CRE boundary operability is maintained and
verified through effective surveillance and programmatic requirements,
and that appropriate remedial actions are taken in the event of an
inoperable CRE boundary.
Date of issuance: November 25, 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: 154, Unit 2: 135.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses, the technical specifications and the additional
conditions.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15787).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 25, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: December 28, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment revised
Technical Specification (TS) Administrative Controls Section 5.5.8,
``Inservice Testing Program,'' to indicate that the Inservice Testing
Program (IST) shall include testing frequencies applicable to the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operation and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (ASME OM Code), and to indicate
that there may be some nonstandard frequencies specified as 2 years or
less in the IST, to which the provisions of Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 3.0.2 is applicable.
The amendment also revised TS 5.5.8.a and TS 5.5.8.d to reference a
more recent ASME OM Code. In addition, the amendment revised TS 5.5.8.b
to allow any test frequency in the
[[Page 76418]]
IST Program that is 2 years or less to be extended up to 25 percent in
accordance with the provisions in TS SR 3.0.2.
Date of issuance: November 24, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15789).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 24, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: November 29, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety Valves,'' TS 3.4.11,
``Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valves (PORVs),'' and TS 3.4.12,
``Cold Overpressure Mitigation System (COMS)'' to adopt Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) travelers to
the Standard Technical Specifications, TSTF-247-A and TSTF-352-A.
Date of issuance: November 25, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 188.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (73 FR
63025).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 25, 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
[[Page 76419]]
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. If a
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by
the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 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
[[Page 76420]]
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.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit No. 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 12, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: November 25, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 5 days.
Amendment No.: 71.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: The amendment revises the
TSs and the license.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendments was
published in the The Herald-News newspaper, located in Dayton,
Tennessee on November 19, 2008. The notice provided an opportunity to
submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No
comments have been received.
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 November 25, 2008.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of December 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-29450 Filed 12-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P