[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68867-68872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30675]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0567]
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 December 3, 2009, to December 16, 2009. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 15, 2009 (74 FR 66381).
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 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-
[[Page 68868]]
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 requestor/petitioner
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
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/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. 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 requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner 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 (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). 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 participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at (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
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
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. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
[[Page 68869]]
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant 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
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 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
E-Filing 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
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. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
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, or the presiding officer. Participants
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from December 29, 2009. Non-timely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or
request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
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].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
relocate selected Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) Technical
Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled program. This change is
based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control--Risk Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF)
Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML090850642). Plant-specific
deviations from TSTF-425 are proposed to accommodate differences
between the Oyster Creek TSs and the model TSs originally used to
develop TSTF-425.
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-425 in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a
model safety evaluation (SE) and a model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated October
30, 2009, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC
determination which is presented below.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of NSHC is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the
[[Page 68870]]
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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-01, Rev. 1[. The] methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2009.
Description of amendment request: Florida Power & Light proposes to
revise the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 licensing bases to adopt the
alternative source term (AST) as allowed in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 50.67.
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. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. AST calculations have been performed for
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 which demonstrate that the dose
consequences remain below limits specified in RG 1.183 and 10 CFR
50.67. For the Spent Fuel Cask Drop and the Waste Gas Decay Tank
Rupture Events which are not addressed by RG [Regulatory Guide]
1.183, the AST methodology has demonstrated that the dose
consequences remain below the limits identified above. The AST
calculations are based on the current plant design and operation as
modified by the installation of a passive post-LOCA [loss-of-coolant
accident] recirculation pH control system, re-location and redesign
of the control room emergency ventilation intakes, the replacement
of the aluminum normal containment cooler fins with copper fins, and
for certain events, manual operator actions for initiation of
control room emergency ventilation system. These proposed changes to
the plant configuration are not accident precursors for any
previously evaluated accidents and support mitigation of the dose
consequences of previously evaluated accidents. The proposed
modification to the plant configuration will be fully qualified to
the appropriate design requirements to assure their required
function is available for accident mitigation and to assure the
function of other equipment required for accident mitigation are not
adversely impacted. The use of the AST changes the regulatory
assumptions regarding the analytical treatment of the design basis
accidents and has no direct effect on the probability of any
accident. The AST has been utilized in the analysis of the limiting
design basis accidents listed above. The results of the analyses,
which include the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications
(TS), and the installation of the modifications, demonstrate that
the dose consequences of these limiting events are all within
regulatory limits.
TS 3/4.6.3 Emergency Containment Filtering (ECF) System has been
deleted since the dose consequence analyses are within regulatory
limits. A new TS is being incorporated to ensure the operability of
the Recirculation pH Control System. The remaining TS changes are
consistent with, or more restrictive than, the current TS
requirements or established precedent. None of the affected systems,
components, or programs are related to accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 only affect
those systems described above. The proposed Recirculation pH Control
System is a passive system that will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed modification to the plant configuration will
be fully qualified to the appropriate design requirements to assure
their required function is available for accident mitigation and to
assure the function of other equipment required for accident
mitigation are not adversely impacted. Neither implementation of the
AST methodology, establishing more restrictive TS requirements,
deleting TS 3/4.6.3, nor installing the modifications described
above have the capability to introduce any new failure mechanisms or
cause any analyzed accident to progress in a different manner.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed implementation of the AST methodology is consistent
with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183. For the Spent Fuel Cask Drop and
the Waste Gas Decay Tank Rupture Events which are not addressed by
RG 1.183, the AST methodology has demonstrated that the dose
consequences remain below the limits identified above.
With the exception of the deletion of TS 3/4.6.3, and the
addition of the recirculation pH sump control system, the proposed
TS changes are consistent with, or more restrictive than, the
current TS requirements or established precedent. The proposed TS
requirements and plant modifications will support the AST revisions
to the limiting design basis accidents. As such, the current plant
margin of safety is preserved. Conservative methodologies, per the
guidance of RG 1.183, have been used in performing the accident
analyses. The radiological consequences of these accidents are all
within the regulatory acceptance criteria associated with the use of
the AST methodology.
The proposed changes continue to ensure that the doses at the
exclusion area and low population zone boundaries and in the Control
Room are within the corresponding regulatory limits of RG 1.183 and
10 CFR 50.67. The margin of safety for the radiological limits is
set at or below the 10 CFR 50.67 limits. An acceptable margin of
safety is inherent in these limits.
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 50.92(c) are
satisfied.
[[Page 68871]]
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
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: September 23, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Delete TS 4.0.5,
which pertains to surveillance requirements (SRs) for inservice
inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST) of American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Code)
Class 1, 2 and 3 components; (2) add a new TS for the IST Program to
Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' of the TSs; and (3) change
TSs that currently reference TS 4.0.5 to reference the IST Program or
ISI Program, as applicable. The new TS for the IST Program, TS 6.8.4.j,
will indicate that the program will include testing frequencies
applicable to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
Power Plants (OM Code), replacing the current reference to Section XI
of the ASME Code specified in TS 4.0.5. In addition, TS 6.8.4.j would
revise the requirements, currently contained in TS 4.0.5, regarding the
applicability of the surveillance interval extension provisions of SR
4.0.2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise TS 4.0.5, Surveillance Requirements
for Inservice Inspections and Testing of ASME Code Components, for
consistency with [ ] 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) requirements regarding
inservice testing of pumps and valves. The proposed change
incorporates revisions to the ASME OM Code and clarifies testing
frequency requirements for testing pumps and valves. The proposed
change also relocates the ISI and IST Programs consistent with
NUREG-1431.
The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators or
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any
equipment, or any design changes to the facility.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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 changes do not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or 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. Therefore, this proposed change
does not create the possibility of an accident of a different kind
than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed changes revises and relocates TS 4.0.5,
Surveillance Requirements for Inservice Inspections and Testing of
ASME Code Components, for consistency with (1) the requirements of
10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) regarding the inservice testing of pumps and
valves and (2) NUREG-1431. The proposed change updates references to
the ASME OM Code, clarifies testing frequency requirements for
testing pumps and valves, and relocates the IST Program to Section
6.0 of TS, and the ISI Program to a licensee controlled document.
The safety function of the affected pumps and valves will be
maintained; the programs will continue to be implemented with the
required regulations and codes.
Therefore, this 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: Vincent Zabielski, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
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 System (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].
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: January 5, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated June 9, and September 2, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for mode change limitations in
accordance with Revision 9 of Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode
Restraints.''
[[Page 68872]]
Date of issuance: December 8, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 180.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 24, 2009 (74
FR 8286).
The letters dated June 9, and September 2, 2009, provided
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 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: January 30, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated March 16 and September 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 5.7.1.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to
allow the use of the CASMO-4 methodology to perform nuclear design
calculations.
Date of issuance: December 15, 2009.
Effective date: Upon issuance; to be implemented within 60 days of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-222; Unit 3-215.
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 22, 2009 (74
FR 48320). The supplemental letters dated March 16 and September 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 15, 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: December 29, 2008, as
supplemented by letter dated June 18, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.4, ``DC [Direct Current] Sources--Operating,''
and TS 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown.'' Specifically, the amendment
revised the battery connection resistance verification limits in
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.2 and SR 3.8.4.5, by lowering the
acceptance criteria for cell-to-cell (i.e., inter-cell) and terminal
battery connection resistances from 150 micro-ohms to 69 micro-ohms.
Date of issuance: December 9, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 194.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR
18257). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 December 9, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of December, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-30675 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P