[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6662-6674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2553]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-045]
Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from January 14, 2009 to January 28, 2009. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 27, 2009 (74 FR 4767).
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, TWB-05-B01M, 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. Copies of written comments
received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect
[[Page 6663]]
to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
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 all adjudicatory documents
over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage
media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless
they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-
[[Page 6664]]
submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing Help Desk,
which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday. The help electronic filing Help Desk can be contacted
by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at [email protected].
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).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendments request: November 24, 2008.
Description of amendments request: The proposed amendments would
delete Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3.2, ``Containment Atmosphere
Dilution (CAD) System,'' and the associated TS Bases that will result
in modifications to containment combustible gas control TS requirements
as permitted by 10 CFR 50.44. This change is consistent with NRC-
approved Revision 2 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-478,
``BWR [Boiling Water Reactor] Technical Specification Changes that
Implement the Revised Rule for Combustible Gas Control.'' TSTF-478,
Revision 2 also makes TS and associated TS Bases changes for the TS
section on Drywell Cooling System Fans. Since Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2 TSs do not have this TS section, these
changes are not needed. The availability of TSTF-478 was announced in
the Federal Register on November 21, 2007 (72 FR 65610), as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the no significant hazard consideration
(NSHC) determination in its application dated November 24, 2008.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the analysis of the
issue of NDHD that was adopted by the licensee is presented below:
Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The Containment Atmosphere Dilution (CAD) system is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The TS Required
Actions taken when a drywell cooling system fan is inoperable are
not initiators to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased.
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design basis
accident (DBA) hydrogen release and the Commission has subsequently
found that the DBA loss of coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release
is not risk significant. In addition, CAD has been determined to be
ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from the more risk
significant beyond design basis accidents that could threaten
containment integrity. Therefore, elimination of the CAD system will
not significantly increase the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident while relying
on the revised TS Required Actions for drywell cooling system fans
are no different than the consequences of the same accidents under
the current Required Actions. As a result, the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated is [are] not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: The proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The proposed change permits physical alteration of the plant
involving removal of the CAD system. The CAD system is not an
accident precursor, nor does its existence or elimination have any
adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the reactor core or
post-accident confinement of radionuclides within the containment
building from any design basis event. The changes to the TS do not
alter assumptions made in the safety analysis, but reflect changes
to the design requirements allowed under the revised 10 CFR 50.44.
The proposed change is consistent with the revised safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3: The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The Commission has determined that the DBA LOCA hydrogen release
is not risk significant, therefore is not required to be analyzed in
a facility accident analysis. The proposed change reflects this new
position and, due to remaining plant equipment, instrumentation,
procedures, and programs that provide effective mitigation of and
recovery from reactor accidents, including postulated beyond design
basis events, does not result in a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the NRC concludes that the proposed change
presents no significant hazards
[[Page 6665]]
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is
justified. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: January 14, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: (1)
Delete Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR)
3.1.3.2 and revise SR 3.1.3.3, (2) remove reference to SR 3.1.3.2 from
Required Action A.2 of TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (3)
renumber SRs 3.1.3.3 through 3.1.3.5 to reflect the deletion of SR
3.1.3.2, and (4) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to
clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval
extension.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity to comment in the
Federal Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), on possible
amendments to revise the plant-specific TSs, modify TS control rod SR
testing frequency, clarify TS control insertion requirements, and
clarify SR frequency discussions, including a model safety evaluation
and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination,
using the consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff
subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for
referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal Register
on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935). The licensee affirmed the
applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated
January 14, 2009. The licensee is not proposing to clarify the
requirement to fully insert all insertable rods for the limiting
condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2,
``Source Range Monitor (SRM) Instrumentation,'' because the
clarification is already included in the Columbia Generating Station
TS.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM [Source Range Monitor]
Insert Control Rod Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-
1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) Revise TS
testing frequency for surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS
3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the requirement to
fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ``Source
Range Monitoring Instrumentation'' (NUREG-1434 only), and (3) revise
Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The
consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are
no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and
will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an
accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents
previously analyzed. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
TSTF-475, Revision 1 will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2
frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the
requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the
limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range
Monitoring Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in
Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25
surveillance test interval extension. The GE [General Electric]
Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD [Control Rod Drive] Notching
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated
November 2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test
interval from weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the
reliability of the scram system and that the analysis supports the
decision to change the surveillance frequency. Therefore, the
proposed changes in TSTF-475, Revision 1 are acceptable and do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee
and, based upon this review, it appears that the 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification requirements related to Refueling Water
Tank (RWT) minimum contained volume of borated water. The proposed
changes will make permanent the current administrative RWT minimum
level of 32.5 feet for both units.
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 changes do not impact the initiation or probability
of occurrence of any accident.
The proposed changes will not impact assumptions or conditions
previously used in the radiological consequence evaluations nor
affect mitigation of these consequences due to an accident described
in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. Also, the
proposed changes will not impact a plant system such that previously
analyzed structures, systems, and components (SSCs) could be more
likely to fail. The SSCs will continue to perform their intended
safety functions. The initiating conditions and assumptions for
accidents described in the UFSAR remain as analyzed. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the protective and mitigative
capabilities of the plant. The containment sump pH calculations are
not adversely impacted by the proposed change to the RWT volume. The
offsite and control room doses will continue to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, Design
Criterion 19.
Based on the above evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that
the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents 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.
No new or different components or plant physical changes are
involved with the proposed change. The currently installed equipment
will not be operated in a new or
[[Page 6666]]
different manner. No new or different system interactions are
created, and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes
will not introduce new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases.
The possibility of a new or different malfunction of safety-related
equipment is not created. No new accident scenarios, transient
precursors, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of these changes. There will be no adverse effects or challenges
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of the proposed
changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different 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 changes raising the minimum RWT contained volume of
borated water do not affect the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The change enhances the water available for
recirculation therefore, maintaining and enhancing the margin of
safety.
The safety analyses acceptance criteria are not affected by
these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant
operation outside of the design basis.
Therefore, operation in accordance with the proposed amendment
would 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 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.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to diesel fuel
oil testing consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF-374, ``Revision
to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for Diesel Fuel Oil, `` Revision
0. This amendment would revise TSs 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.
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:
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.
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.
Based upon the reasoning presented above, the NRC staff proposes
to determine that the amendment request involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would modify
the transformer allowed outage time
[[Page 6667]]
(AOT) in the Fort Calhoun Station Technical Specifications (TS)
Sections 2.7(2)a., 2.7(2)b., and 2.7(2)c., and delete the associated
2.7(2) special reporting requirements in TS 5.9.3j.
The proposed changes would revise TS 2.7(2)a. to allow both
auxiliary power transformers, T1A-1 and T1A-2, to be inoperable for a
period of 72 hours, consistent with NUREG-1432, Standard Technical
Specifications for Combustion Engineering Plants, and would revise TS
2.7(2)b. and c. to impose a limit of 7 days for plant operation in the
event that house service transformers T1A-3 and/or T1A-4 become
inoperable.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to remove the allowance for unlimited plant
operation in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 kilovolt (KV)
source does not adversely impact the probability of an accident
previously evaluated. Because the change imposes a more restrictive
allowed outage time (AOT) than that which currently exists, there
would be a reduced probability that the plant would operate in the
future for an extended period without the 161 KV circuit operable.
Further, analyses for abnormal operational occurrences (AOOs) and
design basis accidents (DBAs) assume that all offsite power circuits
are lost when it is conservative to make such an assumption. The
successful mitigation of those accident scenarios is based on the
assumption that diesel generators are the only source of alternating
current (AC) power supplying safeguards loads. The proposed change
does not affect the operability requirements for the emergency
diesel generators (EDGs) and therefore does not impact the
consequences of an analyzed accident.
The proposed change to remove the requirement to verify diesel
generator operability by ensuring that relevant surveillances have
been performed in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV
source has no impact on the probability of an accident since diesel
generators are not initiators for any analyzed event. The
consequences of an accident are not impacted because diesel
generator operability is controlled by other portions of Technical
Specification (TS) 2.7, which ensures that required surveillances
are performed. Appropriate limiting conditions for operation (LCOs)
are entered in the event that EDG surveillance criteria are not met.
The proposed change to the allowed outage time for inoperability
of auxiliary transformers (powered from the 345 KV offsite source)
from 24 to 72 hours does not significantly increase the probability
of an accident since the only impact of not having auxiliary
transformers is that there would be no offsite source to backup
power to plant buses in the event that the preferred source of
offsite power is lost (i.e., the 161 KV source). Historical
experience with the reliability of the 161 KV has shown the power
supply has been highly reliable. The likelihood of losing 161 KV
power is not significantly different over a 72-hour period from the
likelihood over a 24-hour period. The consequences of an analyzed
event does not change allowing the 345 KV source to be inoperable
for 72 hours as opposed to 24 hours since the 345 KV source is not
credited as a mitigating power source.
The administrative changes to add ``T1A'' to the house service
transformer T1A-2 equipment number in TS 2.7(2)a. and add a period
to the text in TS 5.9.3i. are being made for consistency and
clarification. The special reporting requirement is deleted from TS
2.7(2)b., 2.7(2)c., and 5.9.3j., as there is no method for the NRC
to provide the concurrence required via the special reporting
requirements in the current TS. The administrative change to TS
2.7(2)c. clarifies that the telephone notification will be made to
the NRC Operations Center within 4 hours after inoperability of both
transformers.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to remove the allowance for unlimited plant
operation in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV source
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident since the design function of the affected equipment is not
changed. No new interactions between systems or components are
created. No new failure mechanisms of associated systems will exist.
The consequence of losing offsite power sources during plant
operation is precisely the same with the proposed change as it was
previously. In fact, the proposed change is more restrictive in
terms of operating with degraded power sources than is the current
requirement.
The proposed change to remove the requirement to verify diesel
generator operability by ensuring that relevant surveillances have
been performed in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV
source will not create a possibility for a new or different type of
accident since the operability requirements for EDGs will be
maintained in accordance with surveillance and operability
requirements which exist elsewhere in TS 2.7. The allowed outage
times proposed for degraded or inoperable 161 KV circuits are the
same as those that currently exist for EDG inoperability. If an EDG
were inoperable coincident with a loss of the 161 KV offsite source,
the remaining EDG would still be operable for providing power to
safeguards loads in the event of an accident, consistent with
current analytical assumptions. No new failure mechanisms would be
created.
The proposed change to the AOT for inoperability of auxiliary
transformers (powered from the 345 KV offsite source) from 24 to 72
hours does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident since no new design function is established for the power
supply already assumed to be unavailable. The 345 KV source of power
is not credited in any design basis event. No new failure mechanism
is created by increasing the allowed outage time from 24 to 72
hours.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to remove the allowance for unlimited plant
operation in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV source
does not adversely impact any margins of safety since no design
basis function of the affected systems are changed. In the future,
the length of time that the preferred source of offsite power is
inoperable could be reduced which would potentially enhance plant
safety margins by increasing the likelihood that diverse sources of
power are available during a design basis event. Furthermore,
sources of power credited for design basis events are not affected
by this change.
The proposed change to remove the requirement to verify diesel
generator operability by ensuring that relevant surveillances have
been performed in the event of a degraded or inoperable 161 KV
source will not adversely impact margins of safety since the
requirement to verify EDG operability exists in TS 3.7. Further, the
proposed change does not change the design function of any equipment
assumed to operate in the event of an accident.
The proposed change to the AOT time for inoperability of
auxiliary transformers (powered from the 345 KV offsite source) from
24 to 72 hours does not adversely impact any margins of safety since
the offsite power source associated with the 345 KV system is not
credited in any design basis event. In any case, no design functions
of plant equipment will be modified by this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
[[Page 6668]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the TS 5.5.7 Ventilation Filter Testing Program to eliminate the
requirement to test the power output of the Standby Gas Treatment
System's (SGTS) electric heater and to raise the testing requirement
for the relative humidity of the charcoal adsorbed air stream. Also, a
surveillance requirement is being revised to eliminate reference to the
heater and to shorten the required SGTS run time. 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 SGTS ensures that radioactivity leaking into the secondary
containment from design basis accidents is treated and filtered
before being released to the environment. This TS amendment request
does not require or otherwise propose any physical changes to any
system intended for the prevention of accidents or intended for the
mitigation of accident consequences including the SGTS system.
Neither does it involve any changes to the operation or maintenance
of the SGTS system, or to any other system designed for the
prevention or mitigation of design basis accidents. This proposed TS
change involves the elimination of the SGTS electric heater testing
requirements and its concomitant increase in the testing criteria
for relative humidity (RH). However, the percent penetration through
the carbon bed when challenged with methyl iodide during laboratory
testing will not change as a result of this amendment. Therefore,
the carbon efficiency will not be decreased as a result of this
amendment. With respect to the reduction of the run time requirement
for SR 3.6.4.3.1, the proposed run time is adequate to ensure proper
operation of the SGTS.
For the above reasons, this TS amendment request will not result
in a significant increase in the probability of occurrence, or the
consequences, of a previously evaluated event.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No
This proposed Unit 1 and 2 TS amendment request involves
elimination of the testing requirements for the SGTS electric
heater. This in turn requires that the testing criteria for the air
stream RH be increased from their current value of 70% to 95%.
However, no changes are being made to the way the SGTS system, or
any other system, is operated or maintained. Changes are being made
to how the SGTS will be surveilled, however these changes will not
result in the system being operated outside of its design basis.
Since no new modes of operation are introduced, the probability of
occurrence of an event different from any previously evaluated is
not increased.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No
The requirements for the Unit 1 and 2 SGTS electric heater are
being eliminated. Without the benefit of the heater, the laboratory
testing criteria for the RH of the air stream are higher and are
therefore being changed from 70% to 95%. The requirements on carbon
efficiency are not being changed by this TS revision request; the
methyl iodide penetration criteria will remain at less than 2.5%.
The capability of the SGTS system to holdup the iodine will
therefore remain unchanged. The proposed 15 minute run time for the
SR 3.6.4.3 will still allow for the adequate verification of the
proper operation of the credited SGTS components. For this reason,
the margin of safety is not significantly reduced.
Based on the above, Southern Nuclear concludes that the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under
the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a
finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specifications (TSs) 1.1, ``Definitions,'' and 3.4.16,
``RCS Specific Activity,'' and Surveillance Requirements 3.4.16.1 and
3.4.16.3. The proposed changes would replace the current TS 3.4.16
limit on reactor coolant system (RCS) gross specific activity with a
new limit on RCS noble gas specific activity. The noble gas specific
activity limit would be based on a new dose equivalent Xe-133
definition that would replace the current E Bar average disintegration
energy definition. The availability of this TS revision was announced
in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12217) as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process. The licensee affirmed the
applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration
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 adopted by the licensee is
presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary coolant
gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for any accident
previously evaluated. The current variable limit on primary coolant
iodine concentration is not an initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does not significantly
increase the probability of an accident. The proposed change will limit
primary coolant noble gases to concentrations consistent with the
accident analyses. The proposed change to the Completion Time has no
impact on the consequences of any design basis accident since the
consequences of an accident during the extended Completion Time are the
same as the consequences of an accident during the Completion Time. As
a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter any
physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant operating
parameter. The change does not create the potential for a new or
different kind of accident from any previously calculated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas radioactivity
in the primary coolant. The proposed change
[[Page 6669]]
is consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the
safety analyses.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the
analysis adopted by the licensee and, based on this review, it appears
that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
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, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: January 17, 2008, as
supplemented by letter dated February 29, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments modified the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to establish more effective and
appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE)
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler TSTF-448,
Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' Specifically, the proposed
amendments modified TS 3.7.11, ``Control Room Essential Filtration
System (CREFS),'' and added new TS 5.5.17, ``Control Room Envelope
Habitability Program,'' to TS Administrative Controls Section 5.5,
``Programs and Manuals.''
Date of issuance: January 23, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--171; Unit 2--171; Unit 3--171.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR
25036). The supplemental letter dated February 29, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's
related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated January 23, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: August 28, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.7.2.1 by replacing the
main steam isolation valve (MSIV) closure time with the phrase ``within
limits.'' The MSIV closure time is relocated to the licensee controlled
document that is referenced in the TS Bases. The changes are consistent
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF)-491, Revision 2, ``Removal of Main Steam and Main
Feedwater Valve Isolation Times from Technical Specifications.''
Date of issuance: January 26, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 289 and 265.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58671). The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 26, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370,
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: December 11, 2007, as
supplemented December 18, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications sections to allow the bypass test times and
Completion Times (CTs) for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCOs)
3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation'' and 3.3.2,
``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation.''
The proposed license amendment request (LAR) adopts changes as
described in Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power (WCAP) topical report
WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1, ``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the
Reactor Protection System and Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System Test Times and Completion Times,'' issued October 1998 and
approved by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
[[Page 6670]]
Commission (NRC) letter dated July 15, 1998. Implementation of the
proposed changes is consistent with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-418, Revision 2, ``RPS [Reactor Protection System]
and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times (WCAP-14333).'' The NRC
approved TSTF-418, Revision 2, by letter dated April 2, 2003.
In addition, the proposed LAR adopts changes as described in WCAP-
15376-P-A, Revision 1,``Risk-Informed Assessment of the RTS and ESFAS
Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and
Completion Times,'' issued March 2003, as approved by NRC letter dated
December 20, 2002. Implementation of the proposed changes is consistent
with TSTF Traveler TSTF-411, Revision 1, ``Surveillance Test
Interval Extension for Components of the Reactor Protection System
(WCAP-15376).'' The NRC approved TSTF-411, Revision 1, by letter dated
August 30, 2002. The licensee also requested additional changes not
specifically included in the above topical reports. These changes will
be evaluated in a future amendment.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 248 and 228.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15783). The supplement dated December 18, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 21, 2008, as supplemented by letter
dated December 11, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Arkansas
Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 Technical Specification (TSs) requirements for
inoperable snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.0.8 and associated Bases, allowing a delay time for entering a
supported system TSs, when the inoperability is due solely to an
inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The changes
relating to the addition of LCO 3.0.8 are consistent with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Industry/Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) change TSTF-
372, Revision 4.
Date of issuance: January 28, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 235.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR
65695). The supplemental letter dated December 11, 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 January 28, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: January 22, 2008, as
supplemented by letters dated August 27 and October 22, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3 requirements related to Diesel Fuel
Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air by replacing the specific fuel oil and
lube oil storage values with the corresponding number of days supply.
The specific values would be relocated to a licensee-controlled
document (i.e., the TS Bases). It also expanded the ``clear and
bright'' test in TS 5.5.10 by allowing a water and sediment test to be
performed to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil prior to
addition to the storage tanks.
Date of issuance: January 21, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 293.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR
25037). The supplements dated August 27 and October 22, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's 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 January 21, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment (1) deleted Technical
Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and revised SR
3.1.3.3; (2) removed the reference to SR 3.1.3.2 from Required Action
A.2 of TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY''; (3) clarified the
requirement to fully insert all insertable rods for the limiting
condition for operation in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitor (SRM)
Instrumentation,'' Required Action E.2; and (4) revised Example 1.4-3
in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25
surveillance test interval extension. The changes are in accordance
with NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod
Action.''
Date of issuance: January 23, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 161.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR
65690). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 23, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 6671]]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: February 1, 2008, as
supplemented by letter dated August 20, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.16.b, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to specify a lower peak calculated containment internal
pressure following a large-break loss-of-coolant accident and the
containment design pressure at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1
and 2. By letter dated August 20, 2008, the licensee withdrew its
request to use the guidance in American National Standards Institute/
American National Standards (ANSI/ANS) 56.8-2002, ``Containment System
Leakage Testing,'' in lieu of the 1994 Edition.
Date of issuance: January 15, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--203; Unit 2--204.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15787). The supplemental letter dated August 20, 2008, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 15, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: December 20, 2007, as supplemented on
September 12, October 8, and October 27, 2008.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendment request
contained sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information. The
amendments revised technical specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip
System Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6, ``Containment Purge and
Exhaust Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.7, ``Control Room Emergency
Filtration/ Pressurization System Actuation Instrumentation,'' and TS
3.3.8, ``Penetration Room Filtration System Actuation Instrumentation''
to adopt completion time, bypass test time, and surveillance
requirement (SR) frequency changes approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in WCAP-14333-P-A, Rev.1, ``Probabilistic Risk
Analysis of the Reactor Protection System and Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Test Times and Completion Times,'' October 1998 and
WCAP-15376-P-A, Rev.1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment of the Reactor Trip
System and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Surveillance Test
Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and Completion Times,'' March
2003. In addition, the amendments revised SR 3.3.1.8 to adopt
surveillance frequency changes approved by the NRC in Industry/
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification (STS) Change Traveler 242, Rev.1, ``Increase the Time to
Perform a Channel Operational Test on Power Range and Intermediate
Range Instruments.'' Also, the amendments revised the completion times
of limiting condition for operation 3.3.1, Condition F from 2 hours to
24 hours consistent with changes approved by the NRC in Industry/TSTF
STS Change Traveler 246, Rev. 0, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,
3.3.1 Condition F Completion Time.'' Finally, the amendments provided
for minor editorial changes.
Date of Issuance: January 15, 2009.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--180; Unit 2--173.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (73 FR
39056). The supplements dated September 12, October 8, and October 27,
2008, provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of
the December 20, 2007, application nor the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated January 15, 2009.
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: August 12, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs) to delete Section 2.H of the
Facility Operating Licenses, which require reporting of violations of
the requirements in Section 2.C of the Facility Operating License.
Date of issuance: January 15, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--155; Unit 2--136.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58677). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 15, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: January 28, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated July 28, September 25 and 30, and November 24, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The current amendments revised
Action 5 in Table 3.3-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' of
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip Instrumentation,''
into Action 5.a for one inoperable channel of extended range neutron
flux instrumentation and Action 5.b for two inoperable channels of this
instrumentation. The previous Amendment Nos. 187 (Unit 1) and 174 (Unit
2), issued October 16, 2008, revised (1) Action 5 in TS Table 3.3-1 for
one inoperable channel of extended range neutron flux instrumentation
and (2) Action c in TS 3.4.1.4.2, ``Reactor Coolant System, Cold
Shutdown--Loops Not Filled.'' The current amendments complete the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's review of the application.
Date of issuance: January 28, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--189; Unit 2--177.
[[Page 6672]]
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 25, 2008 (73 FR
15788). The supplemental letters dated July 28 and September 25 and 30,
and November 24, 2008, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2009.
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: January 14, 2008, as
supplemented by letters dated November 26 and December 17, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
Technical Specification (TS) to establish more effective and
appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE)
in accordance with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler
TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' Specifically, the
amendment modified TS 3.7.10, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation
System (CREVS),'' and established a CRE habitability program in TS
Section 5.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs and Manuals.''
Date of issuance: January 27, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 190.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (73 FR
62570). The supplemental letters dated November 26 and December 17,
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 January 27, 2009.
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,
[[Page 6673]]
(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, any person(s) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. If a
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by
the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical---primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental---primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous---does not fall into one of the categories
outlined above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
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 adjudicatory 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
[[Page 6674]]
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 electronic filing
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The electronic filing Help Desk can be contacted
by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at [email protected].
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).
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.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-499, South Texas Project,
Unit 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2008, as supplemented by
letter dated January 7, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The amendment is requested to
extend the Allowed Outage (AOT) Time for Technical Specification
3.7.1.7, ``Main Feedwater System.'' This AOT extension is requested
from the current 4 hours to 24 hours, only to facilitate repair to the
South Texas Project (STP), Unit 2, Train D Main Feedwater Isolation
Valve, which is degraded due to a leak in its pneumatic actuator.
Date of issuance: January 16, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the start of the STP, Unit 2, Train D Main Feedwater Isolation
Valve repairs.
Amendment No.: 176.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-80: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes (73 FR 80437; December 31, 2008). The
supplemental letter dated January 7, 2009, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been
received. The notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing
by March 2, 2009, but indicated that if the Commission makes a final
NSHC determination, any such hearing would take place after issuance of
the amendment.
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 January 16, 2009.
Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of January 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-2553 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P