[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26428-26440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12511]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0220]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from May 7, 2009 to May 20, 2009. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 19, 2009 (73 FR 370501).
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. The filing of
requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the
Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings''
in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public
[[Page 26429]]
File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help
Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The Meta-System 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,
[[Page 26430]]
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to
the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner
are responsible for serving the document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of
deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of amendments request: April 23, 2009.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would delete those
portions of the Technical Specifications (TSs) superseded by Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, Subpart I. This
change is consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
Revision 0 to Technical Specification Task Force 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 availability of this TS improvement was announced in the
Federal Register on December 30, 2008 (73 FR 79923) as part of the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
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 or the manner in which structures, systems, or components
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 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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street,
17th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: John Boska.
[[Page 26431]]
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 26, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete the Technical Specifications (TS) requirements related to
hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen monitors. The proposed TS changes
support implementation of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.44, ``Standards
for Combustible Gas Control System in Light-Water-Cooled Power
Reactors,'' which became effective on October 16, 2003. These changes
are consistent with Revision 1 of the NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler, TSTF-447, ``Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and
Change to Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitors.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for public comments on
TSTF-447, Revision 1 in the Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR
50374), soliciting comments on a model safety evaluation and a model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for the
elimination of requirements for hydrogen recombiners, and hydrogen and
oxygen monitors from the TS. Based on its evaluation of the public
comments received, the NRC staff made appropriate changes to the models
and included final versions in a notice of availability published in
the Federal Register on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416), regarding the
adoption of TSTF-447, Revision 1, as part of the NRC's consolidated
line item improvement process. The licensee affirmed the applicability
of the model NSHC determination in its application dated February 26,
2009.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC adopted by the licensee is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates
requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a
release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and
purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address
the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was
postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that
this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-
basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after
the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were
ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant
accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release,
hydrogen monitors are no longer required to mitigate design-basis
accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not meet the
definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 CFR 50.2.
RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.97 Category 1 is intended for key variables
that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety function
for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen monitors no longer
meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As part of the
rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found that Category
3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate categorization for the
hydrogen monitors because the monitors are required to diagnose the
course of beyond design-basis accidents.
The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen monitors can be
relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The
emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used
in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the
consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite
releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action
recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities.
Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3 and removal of
the hydrogen monitors from TS will not prevent an accident
management strategy through the use of the SAMGs [severe accident
management guidelines], the emergency plan (EP), the emergency
operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring that support
modification of emergency plan protective action recommendations
(PARs).
Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiners and
relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal
of these requirements from TS, 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 Previously Evaluated
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and
relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal
of these requirements from TS, will not result in any failure mode
not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen
monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a design-basis hydrogen
release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen monitor equipment are
not considered accident precursors, nor does their existence or
elimination have any adverse impact on the pre-accident state of the
reactor core or post accident confinement of radionuclides within
the containment building.
Therefore, this 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 the Margin of Safety.
The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and
relaxation of the hydrogen monitor requirements, including removal
of these requirements from TS, in light of existing plant equipment,
instrumentation, procedures, and programs that provide effective
mitigation of and recovery from reactor accidents, results in a
neutral impact to the margin of safety.
The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge
systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the
limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated
from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this
hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis
LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after
the onset of core damage.
Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid
assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of
degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to
mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the
requirements established as a result of the TMI [Three Mile Island],
Unit 2 accident, can be adequately met without reliance on safety-
related hydrogen monitors.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety. Removal of hydrogen monitoring from TS will
not result in a significant reduction in their functionality,
reliability, and availability.
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 request for amendments involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) to establish more effective
and appropriate action, surveillance, and administrative requirements
related to ensuring the habitability of the control room envelope (CRE)
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[[Page 26432]]
(NRC)-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise TS 3.7.10, ``Control
Room Area Ventilation,'' and TS Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals.''
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Technical
Specification Improvement to Modify Requirements Regarding Control Room
Envelope Habitability Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process'' associated with TSTF-448, Revision 3, in the Federal Register
on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022). The notice included a model safety
evaluation, a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination and a model license amendment request. In its application
dated July 14, 2008, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the
model NSHC determination which is presented below.
Implementation of the proposed amendment to the TSs will impact the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As a result, it will be
necessary to revise various sections of the UFSAR in accordance with 10
CFR 50.71(e).
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 NSHC 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 does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
proposed change does not alter the required mitigation capability of
the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its functioning during
accident conditions as assumed in the licensing basis analyses of
design basis accident radiological consequences to CRE occupants. No
new or different accidents result from performing the new
surveillance or following the new program. 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 significant
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions and is
consistent with current plant operating practice.
Therefore, 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
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed 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: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286,
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County,
New York.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
Date of amendment request: April 27, 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 CFR Part 26' '' in the Federal Register on December
30, 2008 (73 FR 79923). In its application dated April 27, 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:
[[Page 26433]]
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 26. Removal of the Technical
Specification requirements will be performed concurrently with the
implementation of the 10 CFR 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 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 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 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.
Attorneys for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
William C. Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: March 2, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change will modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protective
Instrumentation,'' and TS 3.3.2.1, ``Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Instrumentation.'' Specifically, Table 3.3-1, Table
4.3-1, and Table 3.3-3, respectively, will adopt a Mode of
Applicability for the Logarithmic (Log) Power Level High, Pressurizer
Pressure Low, Steam Generator (SG) Pressure Low, and the SG
Differential Pressure and Level Low functions to be consistent with the
improved Standard TSs (STS) of NUREG-1432, Revision 3,\1\ ``Standard
Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorrectly referred to as ``Revision 3.1'' in the Entergy
Operations, Inc. March 2, 2009, application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 acts to reconcile a difference between
Emergency Feedwater (EFW) TS 3.7.1.2 and Table 3.3-3 of TS 3.3.3.2,
or differences between the current ANO-2 [Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2] TSs and the STS in relation to Reactor Protective System (RPS) or
ESFAS functions. The TS 3.7.1.2 Mode of Applicability for EFW is
based on plant design basis. Revising the associated actuation
instrumentation Mode of Applicability to match that of TS 3.7.1.2
will continue to ensure that automatic actuation of the EFW system
will occur during any Mode 1, 2, or 3 event that results in a Steam
Generator (SG) actuation setpoint being reached. The change is not
associated with any accident precursor or initiator. EFW will
continue to be automatically actuated and capable of a supporting
plant cooldown through to Mode 4, where the Shutdown Cooling (SDC)
system may be placed in service for decay heat removal purposes.
Upon a loss of SDC, EFW may be manually initiated (if available) or
a back-up source of SG makeup can be placed in service, such as the
non-safety Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) pump or other non-safety Main
Feedwater (MFW) system pumps. These non-safety pumps can be powered
from the onsite Alternate AC [Alternating Current] Diesel Generator
should a loss of offsite power event occur.
Changes to the Modes of Applicability for the Log Power Level
High, Pressurizer Pressure Low, and SG Pressure Low reactor trip
functions do not involve physical plant changes or changes to the
current safety analysis. These functions will continue to provide
their respective protective feature in the operational modes
consistent with the design basis and STS. None of these functions
are associated with accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not result in any plant modifications
or change in the way the plant is designed to function. The proposed
change is not associated with any accident precursor or initiator.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
EFW will continue to be automatically actuated and capable of
supporting a plant cooldown to Mode 4, where the Shutdown Cooling
(SDC) system may be placed in service for decay heat removal
purposes. Upon a loss of SDC, EFW may be manually initiated (if
available) or a back-up source of SG makeup can be placed in
service, such as the non-safety Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)
[[Page 26434]]
pump or other non-safety Main Feedwater (MFW) system pumps. These
non-safety pumps can be powered from the onsite Alternate AC Diesel
Generator should a loss of offsite power event occur.
Changes to the Modes of Applicability for the Log Power Level
High, Pressurizer Pressure Low, and SG Pressure Low reactor trip
functions do not involve physical plant changes or changes to the
current safety analysis. These functions will continue to provide
their respective protective feature in the operational modes
consistent with the design basis and STS.
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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No.1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: April 16, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change is that
Facility Operating License NPF-86 for Seabrook Station be amended to
reflect a change in the legal name of the Licensee and Co-owner from
``FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC'' to ``NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This request is for administrative changes only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, this request has no impact on the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
This request is for administrative changes only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by previously
evaluated accidents will be created. Therefore, this request does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for
administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment or accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the
proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish
safety limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will
not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
Therefore, 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Section Chief: Harold Chernoff.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES Units 1 and 2), Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 24, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated April 30 and May 12, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
change the SSES Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.8.1 for
AC Sources--Operating, to extend the allowable Completion Time for the
Required Actions associated with one offsite circuit inoperable due to
the replacement of Startup Transformer Number 20 (ST No. 20). The
proposed change to SSES Units 1 and 2 TS would allow for a one-time
only extension of limiting condition for operation 3.8.1 Action A. 3 to
10 days during replacement of ST No. 20, while both units remain at
power.
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 proposal would change the Technical Specifications 3.8.1,
``AC Sources--Operating,'' to extend, on a one-time basis, the
allowable Completion Time for Required Action A.3, from 72 hours to
10 days.
The consequence of a loss of offsite power (LOOP) event has been
evaluated in the FSAR [final safety analysis report] and the Station
Blackout evaluation. Increasing the completion time for one offsite
power source from 72 hours to 10 days does not increase the
consequences of a LOOP event nor change the evaluation of LOOP
events as stated in the FSAR or Station Blackout evaluation.
The proposed one-time only change to the TS 3.8.1 Required
Action A.3 Completion does not, of [by] itself, result in an
increase in the risk of plant operation. The incremental conditional
core damage probability (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large
early release probability (ICLERP) do not exceed the regulatory
guidance thresholds for these values.
Therefore, this proposal does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not result in a change in the manner in
which the electrical distribution subsystems provide plant
protection. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis. Allowing the completion time for Action A.3 to increase
from 72 hours to 10 days is a one-time change that will allow
continued operation of Unit 1 and 2 while replacing ST No. 20.
The accident analyses affected by this proposed change are the
LOOP events discussed in the FSAR. The proposed change is consistent
with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating
practice. The potential for the loss of other plant systems or
equipment to mitigate the effects of an accident is not altered.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the acceptance criteria for
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Limit. There
will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined nor [would there be] any effect on those plant systems
necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions.
There will be no impact on the Safety Limits or any other margin of
safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will
continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this
[[Page 26435]]
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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3,
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
NRC Acting Branch Chief : John P. Boska.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the definition of the fully withdrawn position of the Rod
Cluster Control Assemblies (RCCAs) to minimize localized RCCA wear.
Currently, the fully withdrawn position for the RCCAs is defined in the
Technical Specifications (TSs) as being within the interval of 222 to
228 steps withdrawn (i.e., steps above rod bottom). The proposed change
would allow the fully withdrawn position to be defined as being within
the interval of 222 to 230 steps withdrawn.
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.
The revised RCCA definition of FULLY WITHDRAWN will not result
in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the
safety analyses documented in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR)]. The change has been evaluated to determine the
effect on reactor physics, transient analysis (Non-[loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA)]), LOCA analysis, and mechanical operation of the
RCCAs. The evaluations have determined that the reload analysis and
assumed control rod drop time parameters remain bounding. The
specific FULLY WITHDRAWN position will be specified in the reload
analysis for each operating cycle. Prior to each operating cycle the
actual rod drop times are required to be confirmed as less than or
equal to 2.7 seconds per TS Surveillance 4.1.3.3. In addition, since
the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate a
transient, the probability of previously analyzed events is not
increased. Also, RCCA repositioning will reduce the possibility of
rod cladding failure, thereby minimizing the chance of absorber
material being introduced into the reactor coolant system.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not significantly increase 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 RCCAs will continue to meet their functional requirements
and will perform as designed during design basis events. The RCCAs
will remain inserted in the guide thimbles of the fuel assemblies
during operation with the proposed withdrawal limits; therefore
their performance is unaffected by this change. The RCCAs will
maintain their mechanical integrity and remain structurally intact
during a design basis event. The effect of periodically
repositioning the RCCAs is bounded by the analyses in the UFSAR.
Also, RCCA repositioning will reduce the possibility of rod cladding
failure, thereby minimizing the chance of absorber material being
introduced into the reactor coolant system. Therefore the proposed
change will not create a new or different kind of accident [from any
accident previously evaluated].
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The revised RCCA FULLY WITHDRAWN definition has an insignificant
effect on control rod drop time. The rod drop time will continue to
be bounded by that assumed in the UFSAR and required by TS. Prior to
each operating cycle the actual rod drop times are required to be
confirmed as less than or equal to 2.7 seconds per TS 4.1.3.3. No
change is being made to the lowest allowable position; therefore
prior assessments regarding minimal rod insertion into the active
fuel region remain applicable and unchanged.
Consequently, there is no impact on previously analyzed
conditions for both axial and radial power distributions, critical
boron concentrations and temperature dependent shutdown margins.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in any safety margin.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, with changes in the areas noted above, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
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
[[Page 26436]]
Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209,
(301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: January 15, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments modified Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.10, 3.6.7, and 5.6.6 to delete the
requirements related to hydrogen recombiners and hydrogen monitors. The
TS changes support implementation of the revisions to 10 CFR 50.44,
``Combustible gas control system for nuclear power reactors,'' that
became effective on October 16, 2003. The changes are consistent with
Revision 1 of the NRC-approved Industry/Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-
447, ``Elimination of Hydrogen Recombiners and Change to Hydrogen and
Oxygen Monitors.''
Date of issuance: May 14, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1-173; Unit 2-173; Unit 3-173.
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: March 10, 2009 (74 FR
10307).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 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: October 6, 2008.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments remove work hour
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits,
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls
from Technical Specification 5.2.2.e at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than October 1, 2009.
Amendment Nos.: 253 and 281.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4767).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes work hour
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits,
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls
from Technical Specification 6.2.2.f at the Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1.
Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented by October 1,
2009.
Amendment No.: 130.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment
revises the technical specifications and facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4769).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes work hour
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits,
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls
from Technical Specification 5.2.2.e at the H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2.
Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
[[Page 26437]]
Effective date: Effective as of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented no later than October 1, 2009.
Amendment No.: 221.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment
revises the technical specifications and facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (74 FR
4768).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
Public comments received as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Braidwood), Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
(Byron), Ogle County, Illinois.
Date of application for amendment: June 26, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirements 3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.15,
and 3.8.1.20 for the Braidwood and Byron emergency diesel generator
(EDG) start time. The current requirement is to have the EDG within
voltage and frequency limits within 10 seconds after the start signal.
The revised change is to have the EDG above minimum voltage and
frequency within 10 seconds and verified to be within voltage and
frequency limits at steady state conditions. The revision is consistent
with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Change
Traveler, TSTF-163, ``Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and Frequency,''
Revision 2.
Date of issuance: May 11, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: Braidwood Unit 1-159; Braidwood Unit 2-159; Byron
Unit No. 1-164; and Byron Unit No. 2-164.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66:
The amendments revise the TSs and Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (73 FR
50360).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 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: October 6, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes work hour
controls and/or references to the NRC Generic Letter 82-12 from the
administrative control sections of the technical specifications. On
April 17, 2007, the NRC approved a final rule that amended 10 CFR Part
26 and, among other changes, established requirements for managing
worker fatigue at operating nuclear power plants. Subpart I, ``Managing
Fatigue,'' of 10 CFR Part 26 specifically addresses managing worker
fatigue by designating individual break requirements, work hour limits,
and annual reporting requirements. Subpart I was published in the
Federal Register on March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16966), with a required
implementation period of 18 months. Compliance is, therefore, required
by October 1, 2009. In order to support compliance with 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, the licensee is proposing to remove these work hour controls
from Technical Specification 5.2.2.e at the Crystal River Unit 3
Nuclear Generating Plant.
Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented by October 1,
2009.
Amendment No.: 233.
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 Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: July 2, 2008, as supplemented by e-mails
dated February 18 and May 5, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment made administrative
changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit 1 (FCS). The proposed changes corrected several
typographical errors and made administrative clarifications to the TSs.
The NRC staff denies the heading changes to TS Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 2.13 Table 2-11 and TS LCO Table 2-1 which are not
editorial or administrative in nature and, therefore, are not
acceptable.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment No.: 259.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2008 (73 FR
65697). The supplemental e-mails dated February 18 and May 5, 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 as published in the Federal Register on
November 4, 2008 (73 FR 65697).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 12, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments: July 21, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete the
requirements related to plant staff working hours from Section 6.0,
``Administrative Controls'' of the respective plants' Technical
Specifications (TSs). The requirements being deleted had been
incorporated into the TSs based on the guidance in Generic Letter (GL)
82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours.'' The guidance in GL
82-12 has been superseded by the requirements in Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26, ``Fitness for Duty
Programs,'' Subpart I, ``Managing Fatigue.''
Date of issuance: May 14, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented by
October 1, 2009.
Amendment Nos.: 177, 290 and 274.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70 and DPR-75: The
amendments revised the TSs and the Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58676).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
[[Page 26438]]
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: August 18, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating'' requirements. The change is in accordance with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-325-A, Revision 0, ``ECCS
Conditions and Required Actions with <100% Equivalent ECCS Flow.''
Date of issuance: May 15, 2009.
Effective date: Effective as date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 90 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 182.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58680).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 15, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, person(s) may file a request for a
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license and any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in
the proceeding must file a written request via electronic submission
through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing and a petition for leave
to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
[[Page 26439]]
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or
fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--Primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--Primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--Does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
petitioner/requestor seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the petitioner/requestor who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring petitioner/
requestor a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media.
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected] or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help
Desk, which is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The Meta-System 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
[[Page 26440]]
documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be
submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to
the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner
are responsible for serving the document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of
deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-280, Surry Power
Station, Unit No. 1, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 5, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated May 6, 2009.
Brief Description of amendments: This amendment revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) 6.4.Q, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS
6.6.3, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to modify the
interim alternate repair criteria for SG B tube repair to allow tubes
with a permeability variation in the lowest one inch of the tube sheet
to remain in service during Refueling Outage 22 (spring 2009) and the
subsequent operating cycle. The amendment also revised reporting
requirement TS 6.6.A.3, ``SG Tube Inspection Report.''
Date of issuance: May 7, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 264.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-32: Amendment revises the
license and TSs.
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 no significant
hazards consideration determination are contained in a safety
evaluation dated May 7, 2009.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.,120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day May 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-12511 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P