Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 34161-34163 [E5-3050]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
Estimate of Burden: task 1–10 hours.
Task 2–2 hours.
Respondents: Individuals and not-forprofit organizations.
Number of Respondents: There are
approximately 260 recipients and plans
call for contacting 50% of them.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Survey: One.
Comments: Comments are invited on
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information on respondents;
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Dated: June 7, 2005.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 05–11606 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Review; Comment Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of
information collection and solicitation
of public comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently
submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby
informs potential respondents that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
that a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
1. Type of submission, new, revision,
or extension: Extension.
2. The title of the information
collection: Notice of Enforcement
Discretion (NOEDs) for Operating Power
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
Reactors and Gaseous Diffusion Plants
(GDP).
3. The form number if applicable: Not
applicable.
4. How often the collection is
required: On occasion.
5. Who will be required or asked to
report: Nuclear power reactor licensees
and gaseous diffusion plant certificate
holders.
6. An estimate of the number of
annual responses: 26.
7. The estimated number of annual
respondents: 11.
8. An estimate of the total number of
hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 1,991 hours
(1810 reporting [121 hours per response]
and 181 recordkeeping [16.45 hours per
recordkeeper]).
9. An indication of whether Section
3507(d), Pub. L. 104–13 applies: Not
applicable.
10. Abstract: The NRC’s Enforcement
Policy addresses circumstances in
which the NRC may exercise
enforcement discretion. A specific type
of enforcement discretion is designated
as a Notice of Enforcement Discretion
(NOED) and relates to circumstances
which may arise where a nuclear power
plant licensee’s compliance with a
Technical Specification Limiting
Condition for Operation or with other
license conditions would involve an
unnecessary plant transient or
shutdown, or performance of testing,
inspection, or system realignment that is
inappropriate for the specific plant
conditions, or unnecessary delays in
plant startup without a corresponding
health and safety benefit. Similarly, for
a gaseous diffusion plant, circumstances
may arise where compliance with a
Technical Safety Requirement or other
condition would unnecessarily call for a
total plant shutdown, or,
notwithstanding that a safety,
safeguards or security feature was
degraded or inoperable, compliance
would unnecessarily place the plant in
a transient or condition where those
features could be required.
A licensee or certificate holder
seeking the issuance of an NOED must
provide a written justification, in
accordance with guidance provided in
NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900,
which documents the safety basis for
the request and provides whatever other
information the NRC staff deems
necessary to decide whether or not to
exercise discretion.
A copy of the final 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
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34161
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 should be
directed to the OMB reviewer listed
below by July 13, 2005. Comments
received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be
given to comments received after this
date. John A. Asalone, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(3150–0136), NEOB–10202, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395–
4650.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda
Jo. Shelton, 301–415–7233.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of June, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E5–3054 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324]
Carolina Power & Light Company,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units
1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to
Facility Operating License No. DPR–71
and Facility Operating License No.
DPR–62 issued to Carolina Power &
Light Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in
Brunswick County, North Carolina.
The proposed changes replace the
existing requirement of Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.5, ‘‘RCS [Reactor
Coolant System] Leakage Detection
Instrumentation,’’ Required Action D.1,
to enter Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 if required
leakage detection systems are inoperable
with the requirement to be in Mode 3
within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36
hours.
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
34162
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
The reason for the exigency is to
fulfill the NRC’s requirement for the
request for exigent processing of the
proposed amendments as indicated in
NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900,
‘‘Operations—Notices of Enforcement
Discretion [NOEDs],’’ following NRC’s
granting of a verbal NOED on May 12,
2005 (documented in a letter to the NRC
on May 13, 2005).
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act) and the Commission’s
regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for
amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff
must determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration. Under the Commission’s
regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means
that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendments 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. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces the existing
requirement of TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1
to enter LCO 3.0.3 if required leakage
detection systems are inoperable with the
requirement to be in Mode 3 within 12 hours
and Mode 4 within 36 hours. This is
accomplished by deleting Condition D and
including the ‘‘all required leakage detection
systems inoperable’’ statement in Condition
C.
The proposed change does not involve
physical changes to any plant structure,
system, or component. As a result, no new
failure modes of the RCS leakage detection
systems are being introduced. Additionally,
the RCS leakage detection systems have no
impact on any initiating event frequency.
Therefore, the proposed change cannot
increase * * * the probability [of an
accident] previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously analyzed
accident are dependent on the initial
conditions assumed for the analysis, the
behavior of the fuel during the analyzed
accident, the availability and successful
functioning of the equipment assumed to
operate in response to the analyzed event,
and the setpoints at which these actions are
initiated. The RCS leakage detection systems
do not perform an accident mitigating
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
function. ECCS [emergency core cooling
system], RPS [reactor protection system], and
primary and secondary containment isolation
actuations all occur based on high drywell
pressure and/or low vessel water level. The
proposed change has no impact on any
setpoints or functions related to these
actuations. Therefore, the proposed change
cannot increase * * * the 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 eliminates the
unnecessarily restrictive shutdown
requirements of entering LCO 3.0.3 when all
TS required leakage detection systems are
inoperable. No installed equipment is being
operated in a different manner. There is no
alteration to the parameters within which the
plant is normally operated or in the setpoints
that initiate protective or mitigative actions.
As a result no new failure modes are being
introduced. Therefore, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains the
existing level of safety by imposing
shutdown requirements that are as
conservative as those currently imposed by
TS 3.4.4 for actual RCS operational leakage
in excess of TS requirements. The net effect
of this change is to allow a unit to operate
for five additional hours in Mode 1 with no
operable TS required leakage detection
systems, while exiting the Mode of
Applicability for RCS leakage detection
instrumentation one hour earlier (i.e., 36
hours to be in Mode 4 versus 37 hours per
the existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1).
Elimination of the intermediate 7 hours to
Mode 2 requirement, imposed by LCO 3.0.3,
allows the unit to reach the Mode 3 from full
power conditions in an orderly manner and
without challenging plant safety systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendments until the
expiration of the 14-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change
during the notice period, such that
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
failure to act in a timely way would
result, for example, in derating or
shutdown of the facility, the
Commission may issue the license
amendment before the expiration of the
14-day notice period, provided that its
final determination is that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public
and State comments received. Should
the Commission take this action, it will
publish in the Federal Register a notice
of 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, Rules and
Directives Branch, 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 delivered to Room 6D59, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room, located at One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, the licensee
may file a request for a hearing with
respect to issuance of the amendment to
the subject facility operating license and
any person whose interest may be
affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the
Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10
CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://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
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/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 petitioner/requestor must
provide 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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed 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; (2) courier, express
mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101,
verification number is (301) 415–1966.
A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should
also be sent to the Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and it is requested that copies be
transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301–415–3725 or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy
of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be
sent to David T. Conley, Associate
General Counsel II—Legal Department,
Progress Energy Service Company, LLC,
Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27602, attorney for the
licensee.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34163
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated May 17, 2005, which
is available for public inspection at the
Commission’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically 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 7th day
of June 2005. For The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5–3050 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–333]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power
Plant; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. DPR–
59, issued to Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., (the licensee) for
operation of the James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP) located
in Oswego County, New York.
The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs) related to the safety-related battery
systems. The revision is based on TS
Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler
TSTF–360, Revision 1, ‘‘Direct Current
(DC) Electrical Rewrite,’’ and would
revise TSs for inoperable battery
chargers, provide alternative testing
criteria for battery charger testing, and
revise TSs for battery cell monitoring.
The licensee has requested that this
proposed license amendment be
processed per Title 10 of the Code of
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34161-34163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3050]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]
Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-71 and Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 issued to Carolina
Power & Light Company (the licensee), for operation of the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North
Carolina.
The proposed changes replace the existing requirement of Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.5, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation,'' Required Action D.1, to enter Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 if required leakage detection
systems are inoperable with the requirement to be in Mode 3 within 12
hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours.
[[Page 34162]]
The reason for the exigency is to fulfill the NRC's requirement for
the request for exigent processing of the proposed amendments as
indicated in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900, ``Operations--Notices of
Enforcement Discretion [NOEDs],'' following NRC's granting of a verbal
NOED on May 12, 2005 (documented in a letter to the NRC on May 13,
2005).
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments 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. As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces the existing requirement of TS
3.4.5, Required Action D.1 to enter LCO 3.0.3 if required leakage
detection systems are inoperable with the requirement to be in Mode
3 within 12 hours and Mode 4 within 36 hours. This is accomplished
by deleting Condition D and including the ``all required leakage
detection systems inoperable'' statement in Condition C.
The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any
plant structure, system, or component. As a result, no new failure
modes of the RCS leakage detection systems are being introduced.
Additionally, the RCS leakage detection systems have no impact on
any initiating event frequency. Therefore, the proposed change
cannot increase * * * the probability [of an accident] previously
evaluated.
The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of
the fuel during the analyzed accident, the availability and
successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in
response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these
actions are initiated. The RCS leakage detection systems do not
perform an accident mitigating function. ECCS [emergency core
cooling system], RPS [reactor protection system], and primary and
secondary containment isolation actuations all occur based on high
drywell pressure and/or low vessel water level. The proposed change
has no impact on any setpoints or functions related to these
actuations. Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase * * * the
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 eliminates the unnecessarily restrictive
shutdown requirements of entering LCO 3.0.3 when all TS required
leakage detection systems are inoperable. No installed equipment is
being operated in a different manner. There is no alteration to the
parameters within which the plant is normally operated or in the
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a
result no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains the existing level of safety by
imposing shutdown requirements that are as conservative as those
currently imposed by TS 3.4.4 for actual RCS operational leakage in
excess of TS requirements. The net effect of this change is to allow
a unit to operate for five additional hours in Mode 1 with no
operable TS required leakage detection systems, while exiting the
Mode of Applicability for RCS leakage detection instrumentation one
hour earlier (i.e., 36 hours to be in Mode 4 versus 37 hours per the
existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1). Elimination of the
intermediate 7 hours to Mode 2 requirement, imposed by LCO 3.0.3,
allows the unit to reach the Mode 3 from full power conditions in an
orderly manner and without challenging plant safety systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of 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, Rules and
Directives Branch, 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 delivered to
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://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
[[Page 34163]]
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/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 petitioner/requestor must provide 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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed 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; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to David T. Conley,
Associate General Counsel II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service
Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602,
attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated May 17, 2005, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically 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 7th day of June 2005. For The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-3050 Filed 6-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
