[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20741-20758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10039]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0185]
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
[[Page 20742]]
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 April 9, 2009 to April 22, 2009. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18251).
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
and Directives 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 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
[[Page 20743]]
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-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, excluding government holidays. 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, unless an NRC regulation or
other law requires submission of such information. 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].
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 30, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would delete
those portions of Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded by Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I,
consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS
Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour
Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Safety
Evaluation, Model No Significant Hazards Determination, and Model
Application for Licensees That Wish To Adopt TSTF-511, Revision 0,
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions From TS 5.2.2 To Support
Compliance With 10
[[Page 20744]]
CFR Part 26'' in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR
79923). In its application dated March 30, 2009, the licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration.
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:
Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
Removal of the TS requirements will be performed concurrently with
the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, requirements.
The proposed change does not impact the physical configuration or
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the
manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. Worker fatigue is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an assumption in the
consequence mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
Response: No.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
Working hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC
requirements. The new rule allows for deviations from controls to
mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to
maintain the security of the facility. This ensures that the new
rule will not unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not
alter the plant configuration, require new plant equipment to be
installed, alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators,
or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which
systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
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.
Response: No.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to the
plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Removal of
plant-specific TS administrative requirements will not reduce a
margin of safety because the requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are
adequate to ensure that worker fatigue is managed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The 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. 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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: August 7, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The submittal contains six
proposed amendments that would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 Operating
Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, respectively. Four of the six amendments
would incorporate Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) travelers
that have been previously approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). The remaining proposed amendments would modify the PBAPS Units 2
and 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate administrative
changes and clarifications. Each of the six proposed TS amendments and
the associated proposed no significant hazards consideration
determinations are discussed below.
A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-363-A, ``Revise Topical
Report References in ITS [improved technical specifications] 5.6.5,
COLR [Core Operating Limits Report],'' Revision 0, would modify the
PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),''
to remove the requirement to maintain COLR Topical Report references by
number, title, date, and NRC staff approved document, if included.
Incorporation of the TSTF will permit referencing of the topical report
by number and title only in the TSs. The additional details would be
controlled within the COLR document instead of the TSs. Revision of
these details would be subject to the requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.59 for any changes as
opposed to TS amendment.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This action does not affect the plant or operation of the plant.
The change simply removes technical details from the Technical
Specifications already included in the COLR. These technical details
will still be subject to the regulations in 10 CFR 50.59. 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.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
All systems, structures, and components previously required for the
mitigation of a transient remain capable of fulfilling their
intended design functions. The proposed change has no adverse
effects on any safety-related system or component and does not
challenge the performance or integrity of any safety related system.
This change is considered as an administrative action. 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.
This administrative action does not involve any reduction in a
margin of safety. The change simply removes technical details from
the Technical Specifications already included in the COLR. These
technical
[[Page 20745]]
details will still be subject to the regulations in 10 CFR 50.59.
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.
A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-400-A, ``Clarification of
Surveillance Requirement on Bypass of Noncritical DG [diesel generator]
Automatic Trips,'' Revision 1, would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.13 to clarify the intent of the SR.
Specifically, the wording of the SR would be revised to clarify that
the intent of the SR is to test non-critical Emergency DG automatic
trips.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This change clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to
verify that noncritical automatic Diesel Generator (DG) trips are
bypassed in an accident. The DG automatic trips and their bypasses
are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore,
the probability of any accident is not significantly increased. The
function of the DG in mitigating accidents is not changed. The
revised SR continues to ensure the DG will operate as assumed in the
accident analysis. Therefore, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not affected.
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.
This change clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to
verify that noncritical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an
accident. 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. Thus, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This change clarifies the purpose of SR 3.8.1.13, which is to
verify that noncritical automatic DG trips are bypassed in an
accident. This change clarifies the purpose of the SR, which is to
verify that the DG is capable of performing the assumed safety
function. The safety function of the DG is unaffected, so the change
does not affect the margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-439-A, ``Elimination of
Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of Failure To Meet
an LCO,'' Revision 2, would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS Section
1.3, ``Completion Times,'' regarding second completion times for TS
Action (TSA) statements. The plant TSs include Limiting Conditions of
Operation (LCOs). LCOs are the minimum functional capabilities or
performance levels of systems, structures and components (SSCs) that
must be met in order for the plant to operate within its safety limits.
A TSA is the required action that must be performed for an associated
LCO. The PBAPS TSAs are composed of individual ``conditions,'' the
associated action required for the condition, and the completion time
for the associated action. The completion time is the time period
specified in the TSA in which an action must be completed for a given
condition. In some instances, alternate conditions could be entered and
exited indefinitely such that operation of the plant could continue
without ever restoring SSCs to meet the LCO. Additional secondary
completion times (such as limits on the period of time from discovery
of the failure to meet the LCO) were specified for these instances to
preclude this practice. However, two programs have been instituted that
provide a strong disincentive to licensees continuing operation with
alternating TSAs for an LCO as described above. These programs are the
Maintenance Rule and the Reactor Oversight Process. 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1),
the Maintenance Rule, requires each licensee to monitor the performance
or condition of SSCs against licensee-established goals to ensure that
the SSCs are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. If the
performance or condition of an SSC does not meet established goals,
appropriate corrective action is required. The NRC Resident Inspectors
monitor the licensee's Corrective Action process and could take action
if the licensee's maintenance program allowed the systems required by a
single LCO to become concurrently inoperable multiple times. The
performance and condition monitoring activities required by 10 CFR
50.65(a)(1) and (a)(2) would identify if poor maintenance practices
resulted in multiple entries into the ACTIONS of the TSs and
unacceptable unavailability of these SSCs. The effectiveness of these
performance monitoring activities, and associated corrective actions,
is evaluated at least every refueling cycle, not to exceed 24 months
per 10 CFR 50.65(a)(3).
NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator
Guideline,'' describes the tracking and reporting of performance
indicators to support the NRC's Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). The
NEI document is endorsed by Regulatory Issue Summary 2001-11,
``Voluntary Submission Of Performance Indicator Data.'' Extended
unavailability due to multiple entries into the ACTIONS would affect
the NRC's evaluation of the licensee's performance under the ROP.
In addition to these programs, a requirement is added to Section
1.3, ``Completion Times,'' of the TSs to require licensees to have
administrative controls to limit the maximum time allowed for any
combination of Conditions that result in a single contiguous occurrence
of failing to meet the LCO. These administrative controls should
consider plant risk and shall limit the maximum contiguous time of
failing to meet the LCO.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates certain Completion Times from the
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to
any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences
of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed
change does not alter
[[Page 20746]]
or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed change does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures. The proposed change is consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made
in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside of the design basis. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A proposed amendment to incorporate TSTF-485-A, ``Correct Example
1.4-1,'' Revision 0, would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS Section
1.4, ``Frequency.'' Specifically, Example 1.4-1 would be revised to be
consistent with the requirements of SR 3.0.4 which was revised by TSTF-
359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode Restraints,'' Revision 9. The
current version of Example 1.4-1 is not consistent with the current
requirements of SR 3.0.4. Example 1.4-1 would be modified to reflect
that it is possible to enter the MODE or other specified condition in
the applicability of an LCO with a surveillance not performed within
the frequency requirements of SR 3.0.2 without resulting in a violation
of SR 3.0.4.
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 revises Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' Example
1.4-1, to be consistent with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 and
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4. This change is
considered administrative in that it modifies the example to
demonstrate the proper application of SR 3.0.4 and LCO 3.0.4. The
requirements of SR 3.0.4 and LCO 3.0.4 are clear and are clearly
explained in the associated Bases. As a result, modifying the
example will not result in a change in usage of the Technical
Specifications (TS). The proposed change does not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors, the ability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, this change is considered administrative and
will have no effect on the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new or
different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions
and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative and will have no effect on
the application of the Technical Specification requirements.
Therefore, the margin of safety provided by the Technical
Specification requirements is unchanged. There are no changes to the
plant safety analyses involved with this change. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A proposed amendment would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to
incorporate two administrative changes. The first change would modify
TS Table 3.3.8.1-1, ``Loss of Power Instrumentation.'' TS Table
3.3.8.1-1 lists the TS functions associated with the Loss of Power
Instrumentation. The allowable values associated with the TS functions
were revised as a result of a modification, but as described in the
note, were to expire no later than March 1, 2000. The values in effect
previous to the modification were retained in note (a) at the bottom of
the Table. The previous values were retained as a note to allow for
appropriate transition during the period of time that the modifications
were being installed on Units 2 and 3.
The modifications are complete and the note is no longer necessary.
Therefore, it is proposed to eliminate note (a) at the bottom of Table
3.3.8.1-1, as an administrative change to the TS.
The second change would modify TS Table 3.3.3.1-1, ``Post Accident
Monitoring Instrumentation,'' to correct a typographical error. A
previous license amendment incorporated TSTF-295, Revision 0, ``Post
Accident Monitoring Clarifications,'' which included changing the title
for Function 8 in TS Table 3.3.3.1-1 from, ``PCIV Position,'' to
``Penetration Flow Path PCIV Position.'' However, Function 8 was
inadvertently revised on the PBAPS, Unit 2 page to state ``Penetration
Flaw Path PCIV Position.'' The proposed amendment would correct this
typographical error for Function 8 in Table 3.3.3.1-1 of the Unit 2
PBAPS TS.
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:
[[Page 20747]]
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not
impact the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Also, the proposed
changes do not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed
events, nor do the proposed changes impact the mitigation of
accidents or transient events. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not
alter plant configuration, require that new equipment be installed,
alter assumptions made about accidents previously evaluated, or
impact the operation or function of plant equipment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not
involve any physical changes to plant SSCs, or the manner in which
SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The
proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions of operation,
or design parameters for any SSC. The proposed changes do not impact
any safety analysis assumptions and do not involve a change in
initial conditions, system response times, or other parameters
affecting any accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A proposed amendment would modify the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 TS to
incorporate an administrative change to Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor
Protection System Instrumentation.'' Specifically, the proposed change
would modify TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 to delete the ``NA'' from the Allowable
Value column for Function 2.1, ``OPRM Upscale.'' The reference to
footnote ``(d),'' which states: ``See COLR for OPRM period based
detection algorithm (PBDA) setpoint limits,'' will remain in the
Allowable Value column for Function 2.f in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1.
Footnote ``d'' in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 references the PBAPS Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR) for setpoint limits associated with
Function 2.f. There are trip setpoints maintained in the COLR which are
considered applicable to the TSs since they satisfy the requirements of
10 CFR 50.36 for limiting safety system settings. Therefore, the ``NA''
designation associated with note ``d'' will be eliminated to preclude
possible confusion.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
impact the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Also, the proposed change
does not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events,
nor does the proposed change impact the mitigation of accidents or
transient events. 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 is administrative in nature and does not
alter plant configuration, require that new equipment be installed,
alter assumptions made about accidents previously evaluated, or
impact the operation or function of plant equipment. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
involve any physical changes to plant SSCs, or the manner in which SSCs
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not involve a change to any safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, limiting conditions of operation, or design parameters
for any SSC. The proposed change does not impact any safety analysis
assumptions and does not involve a change in initial conditions, system
response times, or other parameters affecting any accident analysis.
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: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1,
Ottawa County, Ohio
Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete those portions of the subject plants' Technical Specifications
superseded by 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I.
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:
Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated
The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions.
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently
with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I,
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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
[[Page 20748]]
The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions.
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Working hours will
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or effect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
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 proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions
on working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions.
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change
does not involve any physical changes to the plant or alter the
manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the
requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker
fatigue is managed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
adopt the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification (STS) change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The amendment would:
(1) Revise the TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS 3.1.3,
``Control Rod OPERABILITY'' and (2) Revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance
test interval extension.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of
opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007
(72 FR 63935), on possible license amendments adopting TSTF-475 using
the NRC's consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) for
amending licensees' TSs, which included a model safety evaluation (SE)
and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination.
The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the
models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal
Register on August 16, 2007 (72 FR 46103), which included the
resolution of public comments on the model SE. The August 16, 2007,
notice of availability referenced the November 13, 2007, notice. The
licensee has affirmed the applicability of the November 13, 2007, NSHC
determination in its application.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) STS. The changes: (1) revise TS testing frequency for
surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, ``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. This change does not affect
either the design or operation of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism
(CRDM). The affected surveillance and Required Action is not considered
to be an initiator of any analyzed event. Revising the frequency for
notch testing fully withdrawn control rods will not affect the ability
of the control rods to shutdown the reactor if required. Given the
extremely reliable nature of the CRDM, as demonstrated through industry
operating experience, the proposed monthly notch testing of all
withdrawn control rods continues to provide a high level of confidence
in control rod operability. Hence, the overall intent of the notch
testing surveillances, which is to detect either random stuck control
rods or identify generic concerns affecting control rod operability, is
not significantly affected by the proposed change. Requiring control
rods to be fully inserted when the associated SRM is inoperable is
consistent with other similar requirements and will increase the
shutdown margin. The clarification of Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4
``Frequency'' is an editorial change made to provide consistency with
other discussions in Section 1.4. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident
after adopting TSTF-475, Revision 1 are no different than the
consequences of an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
[[Page 20749]]
TSTF-475, Revision 1 will: (1) Revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency
in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY'', (2) clarify the requirement
to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitoring
Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance
test interval extension. The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November
2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the
surveillance frequency. Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475,
Revision 1 do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests
involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: February 18, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would
eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from Technical Specification (TS)
6.2.2 to support compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I, consistent with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved TS Task Force (TSTF)
traveler TSTF-511, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2
to Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
The NRC issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model Safety
Evaluation, Model No Significant Hazards Determination, and Model
Application for Licensees That Wish To Adopt TSTF-511, Revision 0,
`Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions From TS 5.2.2 To Support
Compliance With 10 CFR Part 26''' in the Federal Register on December
30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). In its application dated February 18, 2009, the
licensee concluded that the no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination presented in the notice is applicable to Seabrook
Station.
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC,
which 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 removes Technical Specification restrictions
on working hours for personnel who perform safety-related functions.
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the
Technical Specification requirements will be performed concurrently
with the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I,
requirements. The proposed change does not impact the physical
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is
not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 removes Technical Specification restrictions
on working hours for personnel who perform safety-related functions.
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Working hours will
continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The
new rule allows for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent
a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to maintain the
security of the facility. This ensures that the new rule will not
unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any accident initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
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 proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions
on working hours for personnel who perform safety-related functions.
The Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the
worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change
does not involve any physical changes to the plant or alter the
manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained, modified,
tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed
change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside
the design basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification administrative
requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because the
requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker
fatigue is managed.
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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Richard Ennis.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket No. 50-315 and
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien
County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: January 14, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Operating License (OL), Condition 2.C.(2) and Appendix B,
Environmental Technical Specifications, Part II, ``Non-Radiological
Environmental Protection Plan [EPP].'' The licensee states that the
proposed amendment is administrative in nature and intended to delete
obsolete program information to relieve CNP of the burden of preparing
and submitting unnecessary environmental reports.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Environmental Protection Plant (EPP) is concerned with
monitoring the effect that plant operations have on the environment
for the purpose of protecting the environment and has no effect on
any accident postulated
[[Page 20750]]
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Accident probabilities
or consequences are not affected in any way by the environmental
monitoring and reporting required by the EPP. The revision or
deletion of portions of Appendix B of the OL will not impact the
design or operation of any plant system or component. No
environmental protection requirements established by other federal,
state, or local agencies are being reduced by this license amendment
request.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Environmental
monitoring and reporting have no effect on accident initiation. The
deletion of portions of Appendix B of the OL will not impact the
design or operation of any plant system or component. There will be
no affect on the types or amount of any effluents released from CNP.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
These proposed changes are administrative in nature. Changes in
the reporting requirements and other administrative revisions in
accordance with this submittal have no impact on margin of safety.
Environmental evaluations will still be performed, when necessary,
on changes to plant design or operation to assess the affect on
environmental protection. Review, analysis, and investigation of
unusual and important environmental events will still be performed
in accordance with CNP's Corrective Action Program.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket Nos. 50-315 and
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CNP-1 and CNP-2),
Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete those portions of the Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded
by 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I. The proposed change is consistent with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-511,
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26,'' Revision 0. The availability of this
TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register (FR) on December
30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as part of the consolidated line item
improvement process. The licensee concluded that the no significant
hazards consideration determination as presented in the FR notice is
applicable to CNP-1 and CNP-2.
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:
Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety-related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
Removal of the TS requirements will be performed concurrently with
the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, requirements.
The proposed change does not impact the physical configuration or
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the
manner in which the SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
and inspected. Worker fatigue is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an assumption in the
consequence mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety-related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
Working hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC
requirements. The new rule allows for deviations from controls to
mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to
maintain the security of the facility. This ensures that the new
rule will not unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed 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 a margin of safety.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety-related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to the
plants or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, and inspected. The proposed change
does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined.
The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this
change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plants
and to maintain the plants in a safe shutdown condition.
Removal of plant-specific TS administrative requirements will
not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements in 10 CFR
Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker fatigue is managed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: March 4, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment adds a license
condition for submittal of inservice inspection (ISI) information and
analyses requested in Section (e) of the final rule in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50.61a, or the proposed rule
(October 3, 2007; 72 FR 56275), prior to issuance of the 10 CFR 50.61a,
within 1
[[Page 20751]]
year of completing each American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler
and Pressure and Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section XI, Category B-A and
B-D reactor vessel (RV) weld inspections. This amendment request is
associated with the request for relief to extend the ISI interval for
ASME Code, Section XI, Category B-A and B-D RV welds from 10 years to
20 years (TAC Nos. ME0777 and ME0778) and the license condition will be
added in accordance with the conditions and limitations of U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved WCAP-16168-NP, Revision 2, ``Risk-
Informed Extension of the Reactor Vessel In-service Inspection
Interval.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will revise the license to require the
submission of information and analyses to the NRC following
completion of each ASME Code, Section Xl, Category B-A and B-D
Reactor Vessel weld inspection. The extension of the ISI from 10 to
20 years is being evaluated as part of the relief request
independent from the proposed operating license change. Submission
of the information and analyses can have no effect on the
consequences of an accident or the probability of an accident
because the submission of information is not related to the
operation of the plant or any equipment, the programs and procedures
used to operate the plant, or the evaluation of accidents. The
submittal of information and analyses provides the opportunity for
the NRC to independently assess the information and analyses.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will only affect the requirement to submit
information and analyses when specified inspections are performed.
There are no changes to plant equipment, operating characteristics
or conditions, programs and procedures or training. Therefore, there
are no potential new system interactions or failures that could
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will revise the license to require the
submission of information and analyses to the NRC following
completion of each ASME Code, Section Xl, Category B-A and B-D
Reactor Vessel weld inspection. The requirement to submit
information and analyses is an administrative tool to assure the NRC
has the ability to independently review information developed by the
Licensee. The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Docket Nos. 50-30 and
50-185, Plum Brook Reactor Facility, Sandusky, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: January 9, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would add a
new paragraph to Licenses TR-3 and R-93 requiring that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration assess the residual radioactivity
and demonstrate that the stream bed and banks of Plum Brook between
Plum Brook Station boundary and Sandusky Bay meet the radiological
criteria for unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 prior to
terminating Licenses TR-3 and R-93.
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:
A. The proposed amendment to Licenses TR-3 and R-93 does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously analyzed.
The accident scenarios applicable to the decommissioning of the
Plum Brook
Reactor Facility are described in section 3.3 of the Decommissioning
Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor. The Decommissioning Plan describes
postulated events that could result in a release of radioactive
materials from the site and analyzes the radiation dose consequences
of these events and demonstrates that no adverse public health and
safety impacts are expected from these events. Radiological
assessment of the residual radioactivity in environmental areas
involves sampling and performance of surveys. Spot remediation of
some areas will be performed to assure that the as low as reasonably
achievable criteria are met. These activities will involve handling
and movements of minimal quantities of radioactive material and will
involve methods and processes similar to those used for onsite
radiological decontamination and remediation. Further, since any
planned spot remediation will involve the handling of extremely
small quantities of radioactive material, the consequences of any
postulated accidents will be a small fraction of the consequences of
the accidents previously analyzed in the Decommissioning Plan.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not increase the probability
or consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
B. The proposed amendment to Licenses TR-3 and R-93 will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
Accidents previously analyzed in the Decommissioning Plan assess
different scenarios that could cause the dispersion of radioactive
material to the environment. These scenarios arise from
dismantlement activities associated with the decommissioning.
Assessment of residual radioactivity in Plum Brook involve samples
and survey activities that use techniques and processes that are
comparable to those used in on-site assessments. In addition,
radioactivity that will remain in the environmental areas after
License Termination will meet the regulatory criteria for
unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Therefore, no new or
different types of accidents are created by this proposed amendment.
C. The proposed amendment to Licenses TR-3 and R-93 will not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
As discussed previously, the activities that will be performed
at the facility are as previously described and evaluated in the
accident analyses presented in the Decommissioning Plan. The
radiological criteria to be used in applying for termination of the
NRC Licenses will remain the same as originally proposed and are
consistent with the criteria of 10 CFR 20 Subpart E for unrestricted
use. The results of assessments performed by the Licensee will
remain subject to review by the NRC for adequate implementation of
the license termination criteria. Therefore, the margins of safety
applicable to assessing the long term dose to members of the public
from exposure to the facility after termination of the license
remain unchanged. In addition, since this amendment does not impact
any previously reviewed accident analyses as previously discussed,
no margins of safety are affected by this proposed amendment.
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 the Licensee: J. William Sikora, Esquire, 21000
Bookpark Road, Mail Stop 500-118, Cleveland, Ohio 44135.
NRC Branch Chief: Rebecca Tadesse.
[[Page 20752]]
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Surveillance Requirements 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5 in Technical
Specification (TS) Section 3.8.4, ``DC [Direct Current] Sources--
Operating,'' by adding a parameter of total battery resistance to the
values of battery connection resistance. The proposed changes correct
nonconservative TSs.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Performing surveillances that test the resistance and capacity
of batteries is not a precursor of any accident previously
evaluated. Adding a new parameter as an acceptance criterion for
successful test of the batteries does not significantly affect the
method of performing the surveillances, such that the probability of
an accident would be affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not result in a significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
Revision of the surveillances by adding total battery resistance
as a parameter to be monitored will help to ensure that the voltage
and capacity of the batteries is such that they will provide the
power assumed in calculations of design basis accident mitigation.
Therefore, the change does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
NPPD [Nebraska Public Power District] concludes that the
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any modification of the
plant or how the plant is operated. Therefore, NPPD concludes that
these proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will continue to ensure that the station
batteries are able to perform their design function as assumed in
calculations that evaluate their function during design basis
accidents. The proposed change will not affect the design or
functioning of the Reactor Protection System, the Emergency Core
Cooling Systems, or containment. Based on this, the ability of CNS
[Cooper Nuclear Station] to mitigate the design basis accidents that
rely on operation of the station batteries is not adversely
impacted. Therefore, NPPD concludes that these proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 24, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.2.2.e, which is
superseded by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part
26, ``Fitness For Duty Programs,'' Subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue.''
This change is consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approved Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-511,
``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to Support
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
The NRC issued a notice of the issuance of a final rule in the
Federal Register (73 FR 16966, March 31, 2008) that amended 10 CFR Part
26. The revised regulations in 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I supersede
working hour restrictions contained in TSs. Public comment periods for
the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 26 were provided prior to the
amendment of Part 26. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of
availability of the model License Amendment Request (LAR), model Safety
Evaluation (SE), and model proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing in license amendment
applications using Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP),
in the Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). No public
comment period was provided for the model LAR, model SE, and model NSHC
determination provided in the notice of availability since the notice
of availability was used to implement the changes to 10 CFR Part 26,
for which previous comment periods were provided. The licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application
dated March 24, 2009.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1: The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions on
working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. The
Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the worker
fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Removal of the Technical
Specification requirements will be performed concurrently with the
implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, requirements. The
proposed change does not impact the physical configuration or function
of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Worker fatigue is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Worker fatigue is not an assumption in the consequence
mitigation of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 removes Technical Specification restrictions on
working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. The
Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the worker
fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. Working hours will continue to
be controlled in accordance with NRC requirements. The new rule allows
for deviations from controls to mitigate or prevent a condition adverse
to safety or as necessary to maintain the security of the facility.
This ensures that the new rule will not unnecessarily restrict working
hours and thereby create the possibility of a new or different kind of
[[Page 20753]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration, require
new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or effect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
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 proposed change removes Technical Specification restrictions on
working hours for personnel who perform safety related functions. The
Technical Specification restrictions are superseded by the worker
fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change does not
involve any physical changes to plant or alter the manner in which
plant systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition. Removal of plant-specific Technical Specification
administrative requirements will not reduce a margin of safety because
the requirements in 10 CFR Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker
fatigue is managed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed
change presents no 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.
Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3,
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
NRC Branch Chief: John Boska (Acting).
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: July 2, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2.2, ``Control Element Assemblies,'' to allow
replacement of the full-strength control element assemblies (CEAs) with
CEAs of a new design beginning with the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station (PVNGS), Unit 3 fourteenth refueling outage (U3R14) in the
spring of 2009. Additionally, the TS is revised to remove the
registered trademark ``Inconel'' while retaining the generic
terminology ``Alloy 625'' and deleting the references to part-length
CEAs in TS 4.2.2.
Date of issuance: April 17, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--172; Unit 2--172; Unit 3--172.
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: January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4766).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: November 24, 2008, as
supplemented by letter dated April 2, 2009.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments 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 of
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler 478 (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, 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.
[[Page 20754]]
Date of issuance: April 13, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos: 252 and 280.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6664). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that
was within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-414, Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: November 13, 2008, as
supplemented by letters dated February 5, 2009, and February 19, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and revised a license condition to incorporate
an interim alternate repair criterion for steam generator tube repair
criteria during the End of Cycle 16 refueling outage and subsequent
cycle 17 operation.
Date of issuance: April 13, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance. However, the license
condition on page 2 of Appendix B of the license shall be implemented
prior to any entry into Mode 4 during cycle 17 operation.
Amendment Nos.: 244.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-52: Amendment revised the
license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74
FR 8278). Supplements sent by letters dated February 5, 2009, and
February 19, 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 Commission's related evaluation, state consultation, and final
no significant hazards consideration determination of the amendment are
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: July 9, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated September 29, October 3, and October 8, 2008, and
February 6, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by revising the test acceptance criteria specified
in the TS surveillance requirement for the emergency diesel generator
endurance test.
Date of issuance: April 22, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 259.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52416). The September 29, October 3, and October 8, 2008, and
February 6, 2009, supplements 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 April 22, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and -2),
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: September 24, 2008, as
supplemented on November 10, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise Technical
Specifications (TSs) associated with replacing sodium hydroxide with
sodium tetraborate as a chemical additive for containment sump pH
control following a loss-of-coolant accident at BVPS-2. Due to common
TSs for BVPS-1 and -2, administrative changes were made to BVPS-1
license to reflect the BVPS-2 changes.
Date of issuance: April 16, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to achieving Mode 4 during startup from the BVPS-2 refueling
outage in the fall of 2009.
Amendment Nos.: 283 and 168.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments
revise the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4772). The November 10, 2008, supplemental letter provided clarifying
information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 16, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: December 17, 2008, supplemented
by letter dated January 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Crystal
River Unit 3 Improved Technical Specifications Administrative Controls,
Section 5.6.2.9, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' to incorporate the
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler,
TSTF-479, Revision 0, ``Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a,''
and TSTF-497, Revision 0, ``Limit Inservice Testing Program SR 3.0.2
Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.''
Date of issuance: April 13, 2009.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 232.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4773). The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that was
within the scope of the initial notice and did not change the initial
proposed no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: July 10, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related to diesel fuel oil testing
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Industry/
Technical
[[Page 20755]]
Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF-374, ``Revision to TS 5.5.13 and
Associated TS Bases for Diesel Fuel Oil,'' Revision 0.
Date of issuance: April 14, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 207 and 155.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the TSs by relocating references to specific
American Society for Testing and Materials standards for fuel oil
testing to licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate criteria
to the ``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6666).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: September 25, 2007, as
supplemented by letters dated September 8, 2008, November 6, 2008,
January 20, 2009 and April 2, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the allowable
value and channel calibration frequency for Function 2.j, Recirculation
Riser Differential Pressure--High Function (Break Detection), in Table
3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core Cooling system Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: April 7, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 161.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (72
FR 65368).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information, did not
change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination,
and did not expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: July 15, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments 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 electric heater
and to increase the relative humidity for the testing of the charcoal
filter adsorber. Also, a surveillance requirement is being revised to
eliminate reference to the heater and to shorten the required SGTS run
time.
Date of issuance: April 15, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 261 and 205.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6668). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 15, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendments: April 15, 2008, as supplemented
on December 10, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Sequoyah
Unit 1 and Unit 2 technical specifications to be more consistent with
those of NUREG-1431, Revision 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications
Westinghouse Plants.''
Date of issuance: April 13, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 323 and 315.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 20, 2008 (73 FR
29164). The December 10, 2008, supplemental letter provided clarifying
information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-280, Surry
Power Station, Unit 1, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: October 14, 2008, as
supplemented February 20, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 6.4.Q, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS
6.6.A.3, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to incorporate an
interim alternate repair criterion into the provisions for SG tube
repair for use during the Surry 1 2009 spring refueling outage (R-22)
and the subsequent operating cycle.
Date of issuance: April 8, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to increasing reactor coolant system temperature above 200 [deg]F
during startup of Surry Unit 1 from refueling outage 22.
Amendment No.: 263.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-32: Amendment changes
the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (73
FR 76414). The supplement dated February 20, 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 Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 8, 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
[[Page 20756]]
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, 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
[[Page 20757]]
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 on 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 ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC electronic filing
Help Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. 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, unless an NRC regulation or
other law requires submission of such
[[Page 20758]]
information. 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.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.9.10, Water Level--Reactor Vessel by eliminating
control rods from the Applicability, Action and surveillance
requirement during refueling operations. The change is consistent with
Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants, NUREG-1431,
Revision 3.
Date of issuance: April 15, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to lifting the Unit 3 reactor vessel closure head.
Amendment Nos.: 239 and 234.
Facility Operating License Nos. (DPR-31 and DPR-41): Amendments
revised the technical specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated April 15,
2009.
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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-10039 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P