[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34044-34052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16347]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0306]
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) 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 June 18, 2009, to July 1, 2009. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31318).
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 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
[[Page 34045]]
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 (RDB), 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. Written comments may also
be faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC'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 O1F21, 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 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/
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/requestor 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, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents
over the Internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
should 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
[[Page 34046]]
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 using the agency's adjudicatory e-
filing system 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, excluding government holidays. 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 an exemption request, 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 request and/
or petition 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
NBC'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 submissions.
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, 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 O1F21, 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. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC 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: May 13, 2009.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would incorporate
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 479-A, Revision 0,
``Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a,'' and TSTF 497-A,
Revision 0, ``Limit Inservice Testing Program SR 3.0.2 Application to
Frequencies of 2 Years or Less,'' approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on December 6, 2005 and October 4, 2006 respectively.
The proposed changes revise the Improved Standard Technical
Specification administrative controls of the Inservice Testing Program
to be consistent with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Section 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves
classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code
Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3.
The proposed change replaces references to ASME Section XI of the
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with references to the ASME Code for
Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants within Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.8. In TS 5.5.8.b, the proposed change applies
the extension of Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and
accelerated inservice testing frequencies of 2 years or less that were
not included in the frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace, within TS 5.5.8, references to
Section XI of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, with references
to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power
Plants (OM Code). In addition the proposed change
[[Page 34047]]
adds words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the extension allowance of
the Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated
inservice testing frequencies of two years or less that were not
included in the frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
The proposed change is administrative, does not affect any
accident initiators, does not affect the ability to successfully
respond to previously evaluated accidents and does not affect
radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not involve
an increase in the probability or the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace, within TS 5.5.8 references to
Section XI of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with references
to the ASME OM Code. In addition the proposed change also adds words
to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the extension allowance of Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated inservice testing
frequencies of two years or less that were not included in the
frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or involve a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally there is no change
in the types or increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be
released offsite and there is no increase in individual or
cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed change will replace, within TS 5.5.8 references to
Section XI of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with references
to the ASME OM Code. In addition the proposed change also adds words
to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the extension allowance of Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated inservice testing
frequencies of two years or less that were not included in the
frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the operating units or change the methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change incorporates
revisions to the ASME Code that results in a net improvement in the
measures for testing pumps and valves. The safety functions of the
applicable pumps and valves will be maintained.
Therefore, 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
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: Richard Guzman.
DTE Energy, Inc., Docket No. 50-16, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant,
Unit 1, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add
a license condition incorporating a site license termination plan (LTP)
for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 1 (Fermi-1). The proposed
license condition includes LTP change control criteria specifying when
changes to the LTP require prior Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approval. Since Fermi-1 is completely within the boundary of Unit 2,
the Fermi-1 property would become part of Unit 2 site upon successful
completion of license termination activities.
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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The change allows for the approval of the LTP and provides
the criteria for when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval.
This change does not affect possible initiating events for the three
postulated accidents previously evaluated in the Fermi-1 Safety
Analysis Report (SAR), as updated, or alter the configuration or
operation of the facility. Safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, and limiting control systems are no longer applicable to
Fermi-1 in the permanently defueled condition, and are therefore not
considered further. The proposed change does not affect the
boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous
effluent limits, and has no impact on plant operations.
Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The safety analysis for the facility remains accurate as
described in the Fermi-1 SAR, as updated, Section 8.4, Postulated
Radiological Accidents. There are sections of the LTP that make
reference to the decommissioning activities still remaining (e.g.,
removal of large components, decontamination, etc.), however these
activities are performed in accordance with approved Fermi-1 work
authorizations and undergo 10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to
initiation. The plant conditions for which the postulated accidents
have been evaluated are still valid and no new accident scenarios,
failure mechanisms, or single failures are introduced by this
amendment. The system operating procedures are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes will 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?
No. There are no changes to the design or operation of the
facility resulting from this amendment. The proposed change does not
affect the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or
gaseous effluent limits, and has no impact on plant shutdown
operations. Accordingly, neither the postulated accident assumptions
in the Fermi-1 SAR, as updated, nor the basis of the Technical
Specifications are affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented 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: David Pettinari.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 3, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change will modify
Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1 to account for the Combustion
Engineering (CE) 16 x 16 Next Generation Fuel (NGF) and different U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed and approved Departure
from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) correlations. These new correlations will
be implemented in the safety analyses for the next fuel cycle of
[[Page 34048]]
operation consistent with NRC-approved methodologies.
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.
No changes to plant equipment or operating procedures are
required due to the change in the safety limit for DNBR [Departure
from Nucleate Boiling Ratio]. This change does not impact any of the
accident initiators. The analyses of the reload are performed using
NRC-approved methodologies to ensure the Specified Acceptable Fuel
Design Limits (SAFDLs), of which DNBR is one, are not violated. The
current DNBR setpoint continues to ensure automatic protective
action and is initiated to prevent exceeding the proposed DNBR
safety limit.
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 involve 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.
The proposed change supports the loading and use of Next Generation
Fuel (NGF) at Waterford 3 as previously approved by the NRC.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The use of the NRC-approved NGF WSSV-T correlation with the ABB-
NV correlation to establish a new bounding DNBR safety limit of
1.24, preserves the DNBR margin of safety at a 95/95 level. The Core
Protection Calculator (CPC) DNBR power adjustment addressable
constant BERR1 is calculated based on the WSSV-T and ABB-NV CHF
[Critical Heat Flux] correlations such that a CPC trip at a DNBR of
1.26 using the CE-1 CHF correlation ensures that the bounding DNBR
safety limit of 1.24 for the WSSV-T and ABB-NV CHF correlations will
not be violated during normal operation and AOOs [anticipated
operational occurrences] to at least a 95/95 probability/confidence
level.
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
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: April 17, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to reflect a change
in the legal name of the Licensee from ``FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC''
to ``NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC.''
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 request is for administrative changes only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, this request will have no impact on 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 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 will
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
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 will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Antonio Fernandez, Esquire, Senior Attorney,
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 21, 2009 (TSC 09-02).
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) Section 6.8.4.k, ``Steam
Generator Program,'' for Unit 2 including associated TSs Bases 3/4.4.5,
``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' to allow the implementation of
SG tubing alternate repair criteria for axial indications in the
Westinghouse Electric Company explosive tube expansion region below the
top of the tubesheet and specify the W* distance for the SG cold legs.
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.
Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed
changes only affects the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB) accident
evaluation. Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a
compressive axial load to act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA
tends to force the tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out,
it is not a factor in this amendment request. Another faulted load
consideration is a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the
seismic analysis of Westinghouse 51 Series steam generators (SGs)
has shown that axial loading of the tubes is negligible during an
SSE.
TVA's [Tennessee Valley Authority's] amendment request allows
taking credit for
[[Page 34049]]
how the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the Westinghouse
Electric Company explosive tube expansion (WEXTEX) region by
precluding tube deformation beyond its initial expanded outside
diameter. For the SGTR and SLB events, the required structural
margins of the SG tubes will be maintained due to the presence of
the tubesheet. Tube rupture is precluded for axial cracks in the
WEXTEX region due to the constraint provided by the tubesheet.
Therefore, the normal operating 3[Delta]P margin and the postulated
accident 1.43[Delta]P margin against burst are maintained.
The W* length supplies the necessary resistive force to preclude
pullout loads under both normal operating and accident conditions.
The contact pressure results from the WEXTEX process, thermal
expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from the
differential pressure between the primary and secondary side.
Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant increase in
the probability or the occurrence of an SGTR or SLB accident.
The proposed changes do not affect other systems, structures,
components or operational features. Therefore, based on the above
evaluation, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of an SGTR event are primarily affected by the
primary-to-secondary flow rate and the time duration of the primary-
to-secondary flow during the event. Primary-to-secondary flow rate
through a postulated ruptured tube (i.e., complete severance of a
single SG tube) is not affected by the proposed change since the
flow rate is based on the inside diameter of a SG tube and the
pressure differential. TVA's amendment request does not change
either of these. The duration of primary-to-secondary leakage is
based on the time required for an operator to determine that an SGTR
has occurred, the time to identify and isolate the faulty SG, and
ensure termination of radioactive release to the atmosphere from the
faulty SG. TVA's amendment request does not affect the duration of
the primary-to-secondary leakage because it does not change the
control room indicators with which an operator would determine that
an SGTR has occurred. The consequences of an SGTR are secondarily
affected by primary-to-secondary leakage, which could occur due to
axial cracks remaining in service in the WEXTEX region in a non-
faulted SG. During a SGTR, the primary-to-secondary differential
pressure is less than or equal to the normal operating differential
pressure; therefore, the primary-to-secondary leakage due to axial
cracks in the WEXTEX region of a non-faulted SG during a SGTR would
be less than or equal to the primary-to-secondary leakage
experienced during normal operation. Primary-to-secondary leakage is
considered in the calculation determining the consequences of a SGTR
and the value is bounding.
The postulated SLB has the greatest primary-to-secondary
pressure differential, and therefore could experience the greatest
primary-to-secondary leakage. TVA's amendment request allows axial
cracks to remain in service in the WEXTEX region, which have the
possibility of primary-to-secondary leakage during a postulated SLB
accident. However, the primary-to-secondary leakage would be limited
by the amount the crack face can open (compared to a similar free-
span axial crack) and by the restriction resulting from the tube to
tubesheet contact pressure which create a restricted leakage path
from the upper tip of the crack to the top of the WEXTEX expansion.
TVA's amendment request requires the aggregate leakage, (i.e., the
combined leakage for the tubes with axial cracks in the WEXTEX
region) plus the combined leakage developed by other alternate
repair criteria (ARC), to remain below the maximum allowable SLB
primary-to-secondary leakage rate limit such that the doses are
maintained to less than a fraction of the 10 CFR 100 limits and also
less than the General Design Criteria (GDC)-19 limits.
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.
TVA's amendment request does not introduce any physical changes
to the Sequoyah Unit 2 SGs. TVA's amendment request takes credit for
how the tubesheet enhances the SG tube integrity in the WEXTEX
region by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial expanded
outside diameter and allows axial cracks in the WEXTEX region to
remain in service if prescribed criteria are met. Removal of the
existing primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) axial at
dented tube support plate ARC incorporates the more conservative TS
limit for SG tube plugging. A failure to meet SG tube integrity
results in an SGTR. Because the circumferential cracks detected
within the WEXTEX region are required to be plugged, it is highly
unlikely that a W* tube would fail as a result of a circumferential
defect. Therefore, a tube severance which would strike neighboring
tubes and create a multiple tube rupture is not credible.
The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment or any
change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing equipment
are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The amendment request maintains the structural margins of the SG
tubes for both normal and accident conditions that are required by
Regulatory Guide 1.121.
For primarily axially oriented cracking located within the
tubesheet, tube burst is precluded because of the presence of the
tubesheet. WCAP-14797 defines a length, W*, of degradation free
expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube
pullout due to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety
factor applied). Application of the W* criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant
conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for
large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the W*
criteria.
Plugging of the SG tubes reduces the reactor coolant flow margin
for core cooling. Implementation of the proposed changes is expected
to result in plugging of fewer tubes than with the current criteria.
Thus, implementation of the proposed changes will maintain the
margin of flow that may have otherwise been reduced by tube
plugging.
It is concluded that the proposed changes do not result in a
significant reduction of margin with respect to plant safety as
defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or TSs.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises
Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.7-1 Operator Action 3.b and
provides direction if the less-than-required-minimum-operable-channels-
condition for the nuclear flux intermediate range occurs between 7% and
11% of rated 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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change revises TS Table 3.7-1 Operator Action
3.b and provides direction if the less-than-required-minimum-
operable-channels-condition for the nuclear flux intermediate range
occurs between 7% and 11% of rated power. Required action between 7%
and 11% of rated power is currently not addressed in the Operator
Action 3.b. The proposed TS change does not involve a physical
change to any structures, systems, or components (SSCs) at Surry
Power Station; nor does it change any of the previously evaluated
accidents in the
[[Page 34050]]
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Thus, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
No. The proposed change revises TS Table 3.7-1 Operator Action
3.b, and provides required action between 7% and 11% of rated power,
which is currently not addressed in the Operator Action 3.b. The
proposed change does not involve a physical change to any SSCs, and
there is no impact on their design function. The proposed change
does not affect initiators of analyzed events. Therefore, the
proposed change does not introduce any new failures that could
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?
No. The proposed change provides required action for
inoperability of nuclear flux intermediate range instrumentation
between 7% and 11% of rated power in TS Table 3.7-1 Operator Action
3.b. Margin of safety is established through the design of plant
SSCs, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the
establishment of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied
upon to respond to an event. The proposed change does not impact the
condition or performance of SSCs relied upon for accident mitigation
or any safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed
amendment 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
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.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2009.
Description of amendment request: Revise Technical Specification
3.1.3.4, related to requirements for Control Element Assembly (CEA)
drop time to increase the available margin for CEA drop time testing.
Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register:
June 1, 2009 (74 FR 26261).
Expiration date of individual notice: July 1, 2009 (Comments) and
July 31, 2009 (Hearing).
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 at1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: September 12, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Fermi 2 Plant
Operating License, Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS) to remove
statements relating to Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours in
Section 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,'' specifically deleting subsection
5.2.2.e. The requested amendment removes references to and limits
imposed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Letter (GL) 82-12,
``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours'' from the administrative
controls section of the Fermi 2 TS. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, supersede the guidelines in GL 82-12.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than October 1, 2009.
Amendment No.: 181.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (73 FR
73353).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: January 14, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment: (1) Deleted
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and
revised SR 3.1.3.3, (2) removed the reference to SR 3.1.3.2 from
Required Action A.2 of TS
[[Page 34051]]
3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (3) renumbered SRs 3.1.3.3 through
3.1.3.5 to reflect the deletion of SR 3.1.3.2, and (4) revised Example
1.4-3 in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of
the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The changes are in
accordance with NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-
475, Revision 1, ``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert
Control Rod Action.''
Date of issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 212.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6665).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: January 25, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated April 14 and 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Main Turbine Bypass System.'' The change
provides an alternative to the existing Limiting Condition for
Operation for the Main Turbine Bypass System (MTBS). The revised TS
will require that the MTBS be operable or that the Average Planar
Linear Heat Generation Rate, the Minimum Critical Power Ratio, and the
Linear Heat Generation Rate limits for the inoperable MTBS be placed in
effect as specified in the Core Operating Limits Report.
Date of issuance: June 24, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 163.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (73 FR
13023). The supplemental letters dated April 14 and 29, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: June 21, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated January 30, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: A change is proposed to the
technical specifications (TSs) of Clinton Power Station, Unit 1,
consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-423 to the standard
technical specifications (STSs) for boiling-water reactor plants to
allow, for some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than cold
shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed
consistent with the program in place for complying with the
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment would modify the TS to
risk-informed requirements regarding selected required action end
states provided in TSTF-423, Revision 0, ``Technical Specification End
States, NEDC-32988-A.''
Date of issuance: June 26, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (73
FR 8070). The January 30, 2009, supplement, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 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: June 30, 2008, as supplemented
on August 13, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment modified
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Refueling Water
Tank (RWT) minimum contained volume of borated water. The proposed
changes would make permanent the current administrative RWT minimum
level of 32.5 feet for both units.
Date of Issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 209 and 157.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6665). The supplement dated August 13, 2008, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: June 26, 2008, as supplemented
by letters dated March 16 and May 1, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Facility
Operating Licenses by revising the licensing basis loss-of-coolant
accident and main steam line break accident radiological dose
consequences as currently described in the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Safety Analysis Report. The
amendments also make concomitant amendments to Technical Specifications
(TSs) 3.3.5, 3.4.17, and 3.6.3, which are necessary to implement the
revised analyses.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 191, 180.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52420). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information
and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
[[Page 34052]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of application for amendments: June 27, 2008, as supplemented
letters dated August 13, 2008, and February 5, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The changes consist of revisions
to the Technical Specifications in support of the replacement of the
steam generators (SGs) at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The changes reflect revised SG inspection and
repair requirements, and revised peak containment post-accident
pressure resulting from installation of the replacement SGs.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2009.
Effective date: Upon issuance; to be implemented for Unit 2 prior
to entry into Mode 4 during the Unit 2 Cycle 16 refueling outage
return-to-service, and to be implemented for Unit 3 prior to entry into
Mode 4 during the Unit 3 Cycle 16 refueling outage return-to-service.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2--220; Unit 3-213.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 23, 2008 (73
FR 54867). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2008, and February
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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: June 3, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated January 9 and 23, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.7.10, 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8,
and 3.8.10. The amendment (1) deleted MODES 5 and 6 from the Control
Room Emergency Ventilation System and its actuation instrumentation in
TS 3.7.10 and TS 3.3.7; (2) adopted U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF-36-A for TSs 3.3.8, 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and
3.8.10; and (3) added a more restrictive change to the Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) applicability for TSs 3.8.2, 3.8.5,
3.8.8, and 3.8.10 such that these LCOs apply not only during MODES 5
and 6, but also during the movement of irradiated fuel assemblies
regardless of the MODE in which the plant is operating.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 192.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58678). The supplemental letters dated January 9 and 23, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: June 9, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to revise action statements in TS 3.12 for
insertion limit and shutdown margin requirements, revise the
applicability for the operability of the rod position indication and
bank demand position indication systems, revise/add action statements
for rod position indication, and add action statements for group step
demand counters.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 265, 264.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (73 FR
43957).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-16347 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P