Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, Amendment Nos. 220 and 215, 11711-11712 [05-4547]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices ASPA 116 New College Valley, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird ASPA 117 Avian Island, northwest Marquerite Bay ASPA 121 Cape Royds, Ross Island ASPA 124 Cape Crozier, Ross Island ASPA 125 Fildes Peninsula, King George Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 126 Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island ASPA 127 Haswell Island ASPA 128 Western shore of Admiraltry Bay, King George Island ASPA 129 Rothera Point, Adelaide Island ASPA 132 Potter Peninsula, King George Island ASPA 133 Harmony Point, Nelson Island ASPA 134 Cierva Point, Danco Coast ASPA 135 Bailey Peninsula, Budd Coast ASPA 136 Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast ASPA 139 Biscoe Point, Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago ASPA 143 Marine Plain, Mule Peninsula, Vestfold Hills ASPA 149 Cape Shirref, Livingston Island ASPA 150 Ardley Island, King George Island ASPA 151 Lions Rump, King George Island ASPA 154 Cape Evans, Ross Island ASPA 158 Cape Adare ASPA 160 Botany Bay, Cape Geology, Victoria Land Dates January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2011. Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs. [FR Doc. 05–4535 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555–01–M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). VerDate jul<14>2003 18:06 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. The Title of the Information Collection: NRC Form 64, Travel Voucher (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, Travel Voucher (Part 2), Schedule of Expenses and Amount Claimed; and NRC Form 64B, Optional Travel Voucher (Part 2), Expense Report. 2. Current OMB Approval Number: 3150–0192. 3. How Often the Collection Is Required: On occasion. 4. Who Is Required or Asked To Report: Contractors, consultants and invited NRC travelers who travel in the course of conducting business for the NRC. 5. The Number of Annual Respondents: 100. 6. The Number of Hours Needed Annually To Complete the Requirement or Request: 100 hours (1 hour per response). 7. Abstract: As a part of completing the travel process, the traveler must file travel reimbursement vouchers and trip reports. The respondent universe for the above forms include consultants and contractors and those who are invited by the NRC to travel, e.g., prospective employees. Travel expenses that are reimbursed are confined to those expenses essential to the transaction of official business for an approved trip. Submit, by May 9, 2005, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ doc-comment/omb/. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, by telephone at #301) 415–7233, or by PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 11711 Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. 05–4546 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414] Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 35 and NPF–52, Amendment Nos. 220 and 215 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued Amendment No. 220 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–35 and Amendment No. 215 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–52, issued to Duke Energy Corporation, et al. (Duke, the licensee), which revised the Technical Specifications (TS) for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance. The amendment modifies the TS to permit the usage of up to four mixed oxide (MOX) lead test assemblies (LTAs). Specifically, the amendment consists of: (1) A revision to TS 3.7.16 to permit storage of the MOX LTAs in the spent fuel pool; (2) a revision to TS 4.2, ‘‘Reactor Core’’ to include the four MOX LTAs using M5 fuel rod cladding; (3) TS 4.3, ‘‘Fuel Storage,’’ to reflect the enrichment of the MOX LTAs; and (4) a revision to TS 5.6.5 to add two supporting methodologies for the MOX LTAs. The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission’s rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission’s rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 11712 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 9, 2005 / Notices July 25, 2003 (68 FR 44107). A request for a hearing was filed on August 21 and 25, 2003, by the Nuclear Information and Resources Service (NIRS) and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), respectively. A Notice of Opportunity to Comment and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2004 (69 FR 41852). On July 14 and 15, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) held a hearing on a single admitted safetyrelated contention by BREDL. All of NIRS’s contentions were rejected and NIRS was not admitted as a party to the proceeding. The admitted contention was related to the adequacy of the lossof-coolant accident analyses performed to support the use of the MOX LTAs. On December 22, 2004, the ASLB issued a Partial Initial Decision with respect to this matter finding that there is reasonable assurance that operation of Catawba with the four MOX LTAs will not endanger the health and safety of the public. BREDL submitted its security-related safety contentions on March 3, 2004. An ASLB hearing on a single physical security-related contention, as admitted by the ASLB, was held January 11–14, 2005. This contention was related to the adequacy of the provisions undertaken by Duke to provide protection of the MOX LTAs. Findings and reply findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed in February 2005. An ASLB decision on the security contention is pending. Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding or completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards considerations are involved. The Commission has applied the standards of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. The basis for this determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation and three Supplements to that Safety Evaluation related to this action. Accordingly, as described above, the amendment has been issued and made immediately effective and any further hearing will be held after issuance. The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment and one Supplement to the Environmental Assessment related to the action and has determined not to prepare an VerDate jul<14>2003 18:06 Mar 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 environmental impact statement. Based upon the environmental assessment and its supplement, the Commission has concluded that the issuance of the amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (69 FR 51112 and 70 FR 8849). For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment dated February 27, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated September 15, September 23, October 1 (two letters), October 3 (two letters), November 3, November 4, December 10, 2003, and February 2, (two letters), March 1 (three letters), March 9 (two letters), March 16 (two letters), March 26, March 31, April 13, April 16, May 13, June 17, August 31, September 20, October 4, October 29 and December 10, 2004, (2) Amendment Nos. 220 and 215 to License Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52, respectively, (3) the Commission’s related Safety Evaluation and its three Supplements dated April 5, May 5, July 27, 2004, and March 3, 2005, respectively, and (4) the Commission’s Environmental Assessment and its supplement (69 FR 51112 and 70 FR 8849, respectively). All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission’s Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 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, https://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 by telephone at 1–800–397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John A. Nakoski, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05–4547 Filed 3–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414] Duke Energy Corporation, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Exemption 1.0 Background Duke Energy Corporation, (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52, which authorize operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2. The licenses provide, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of two pressurized water reactors located in York County, South Carolina. 2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, § 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems [ECCS] for light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ and Appendix K, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ identify requirements for calculating ECCS performance for reactors containing fuel with Zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, and uranium oxide fuel. Part 11 of 10 CFR, ‘‘Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to or Control Over Special Nuclear Material [SNM],’’ and 10 CFR part 73, ‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,’’ identify requirements that are usually applicable to fuel fabrication facilities for the protection of formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM). By letter dated February 27, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated September 15, September 23, October 1 (two letters), October 3 (two letters), November 3, November 4, December 10, 2003, and February 2 (two letters), March 1 (three letters), March 9 (two letters), March 16 (two letters), March 26, March 31, April 13, April 16, May 13, June 17, August 31, September 20, October 4, October 29, and December 10, 2004, the licensee requested exemptions from 10 CFR 50.46, Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50, and from certain physical security requirements of 10 CFR 11.11(a)(1)–(a)(2), 11.11(b), 10 CFR 73.45(d)(1)(iv), 73.46 (c)(1), 73.46(h)(3), 73.46(b)(3)–(b)(12), E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11711-11712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4547]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414]


Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 
and 2; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License 
and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration Renewed 
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, Amendment Nos. 220 
and 215

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has issued Amendment 
No. 220 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 and Amendment 
No. 215 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, issued to 
Duke Energy Corporation, et al. (Duke, the licensee), which revised the 
Technical Specifications (TS) for operation of the Catawba Nuclear 
Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South 
Carolina. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
    The amendment modifies the TS to permit the usage of up to four 
mixed oxide (MOX) lead test assemblies (LTAs). Specifically, the 
amendment consists of: (1) A revision to TS 3.7.16 to permit storage of 
the MOX LTAs in the spent fuel pool; (2) a revision to TS 4.2, 
``Reactor Core'' to include the four MOX LTAs using M5 fuel rod 
cladding; (3) TS 4.3, ``Fuel Storage,'' to reflect the enrichment of 
the MOX LTAs; and (4) a revision to TS 5.6.5 to add two supporting 
methodologies for the MOX LTAs. The application for the amendment 
complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and 
regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required 
by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter 
I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with this 
action was published in the Federal Register on

[[Page 11712]]

July 25, 2003 (68 FR 44107). A request for a hearing was filed on 
August 21 and 25, 2003, by the Nuclear Information and Resources 
Service (NIRS) and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), 
respectively. A Notice of Opportunity to Comment and Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination in connection with this 
action was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2004 (69 FR 
41852).
    On July 14 and 15, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
(ASLB) held a hearing on a single admitted safety-related contention by 
BREDL. All of NIRS's contentions were rejected and NIRS was not 
admitted as a party to the proceeding. The admitted contention was 
related to the adequacy of the loss-of-coolant accident analyses 
performed to support the use of the MOX LTAs. On December 22, 2004, the 
ASLB issued a Partial Initial Decision with respect to this matter 
finding that there is reasonable assurance that operation of Catawba 
with the four MOX LTAs will not endanger the health and safety of the 
public.
    BREDL submitted its security-related safety contentions on March 3, 
2004. An ASLB hearing on a single physical security-related contention, 
as admitted by the ASLB, was held January 11-14, 2005. This contention 
was related to the adequacy of the provisions undertaken by Duke to 
provide protection of the MOX LTAs. Findings and reply findings of fact 
and conclusions of law were filed in February 2005. An ASLB decision on 
the security contention is pending.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
or completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards considerations are involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, Section 50.92 and has made a final determination 
that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. The 
basis for this determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation and 
three Supplements to that Safety Evaluation related to this action. 
Accordingly, as described above, the amendment has been issued and made 
immediately effective and any further hearing will be held after 
issuance.
    The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment and one 
Supplement to the Environmental Assessment related to the action and 
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Based 
upon the environmental assessment and its supplement, the Commission 
has concluded that the issuance of the amendment will not have a 
significant effect on the quality of the human environment (69 FR 51112 
and 70 FR 8849).
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment dated February 27, 2003, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 15, September 23, October 1 (two letters), 
October 3 (two letters), November 3, November 4, December 10, 2003, and 
February 2, (two letters), March 1 (three letters), March 9 (two 
letters), March 16 (two letters), March 26, March 31, April 13, April 
16, May 13, June 17, August 31, September 20, October 4, October 29 and 
December 10, 2004, (2) Amendment Nos. 220 and 215 to License Nos. NPF-
35 and NPF-52, respectively, (3) the Commission's related Safety 
Evaluation and its three Supplements dated April 5, May 5, July 27, 
2004, and March 3, 2005, respectively, and (4) the Commission's 
Environmental Assessment and its supplement (69 FR 51112 and 70 FR 
8849, respectively). All of these items are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One 
White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 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, https://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 by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to 
pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 2005.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Nakoski,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-4547 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.