Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 32602-32614 [E6-8450]
Download as PDF
32602
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
Contact person for more information:
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/
policy-making/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify the
NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator,
Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD:
301–415–2100, or by e-mail at
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on
requests for reasonable accommodation
will be made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
This notice is distributed by mail to
several hundred subscribers; if you no
longer wish to receive it, of would like
to be added to the distribution, please
contact the Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969).
In addition, distribution of this meeting
notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in
receiving this Commission meeting
schedule electronically, please send an
electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov.
Dated: June 1, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06–5163 Filed 6–2–06; 10:21 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC
staff) is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from May 12,
2006 to May 24, 2006. The last biweekly
notice was published on May 23, 2006
(71 FR 29671).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination. 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.
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 60day 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
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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, 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 6D22, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received
may be examined at the Commission’s
Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of
requests for a hearing and petitions for
leave to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, 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 within 60
days, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also set forth the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner/requestor
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the petitioner/requestor intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the
Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
A request for 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 the attorney for the licensee.
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).
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment which is available for
public inspection at the Commission’s
PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32603
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
pdr@nrc.gov.
Carolina Power & Light Company,
Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1
and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendments request: April
26, 2006.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify technical specification (TS)
requirements for inoperable snubbers by
adding Limiting Condition for
Operation 3.0.8. The changes are
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved Industry/
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) standard TS change TSTF–372,
Revision 4.
The NRC staff issued a notice of
availability of a model safety evaluation
and model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination for
referencing in license amendment
applications in the Federal Register on
May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model
NSHC determination in its application
dated April 26, 2006.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration 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 allows a delay
time before declaring supported TS
systems inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform its required
safety function. Entrance into Actions or
delaying entrance into Actions is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated.
Consequently, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while
relying on the delay time allowed before
declaring a TS supported system
inoperable and taking its Conditions
and Required Actions are no different
than the consequences of an accident
under the same plant conditions while
relying on the existing TS supported
system Conditions and Required
Actions.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32604
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
Therefore, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased by this change.
Therefore, this change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create
the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay
time before declaring supported TS
systems inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform its required
safety function. The proposed change
does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change
in the methods governing normal plant
operations. Thus, this change does not
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve
a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay
time before declaring supported TS
systems inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform its required
safety function. The proposed change
restores an allowance in the pre-ISTS
conversion TS that was unintentionally
eliminated by the conversion. The preISTS TS were considered to provide an
adequate margin of safety for plant
operation, as does the post-ISTS
conversion TS. Therefore, this change
does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T.
Conley, Associate General Counsel II—
Legal Department, Progress Energy
Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael L.
Marshall, Jr.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS),
Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: April 22,
2006.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
relocate the Technical Specification
(TS) requirements for shock suppressors
(snubbers) to the Technical
Requirements Manual (TRM) and add a
new Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.0.8.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve
a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to relocate
TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is administrative
in nature and does not involve the
modification of any plant equipment or
affect basic plant operation. Snubber
operability and surveillance
requirements will be contained in the
TRM to ensure design assumptions for
accident mitigation are maintained.
The proposed change to add LCO
3.0.8 allows a delay time before
declaring supported TS systems
inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform the required
safety function. Entrance into actions or
delaying entrance into actions is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Consequently, the probability
of an accident previously evaluated is
not significantly increased. The station
design and safety analysis assumptions
included provisions for redundancy to
provide for periods when redundant
systems are out-of-service per the TS.
The proposed snubber LCO ensures that
out-of-service time is minimized and
risk is managed per 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).
Therefore, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased by this change.
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 to relocate TS 3/
4.6.1 to the TRM is administrative and
does not involve any physical alteration
of plant equipment. The proposed
change does not change the method by
which any safety-related system
performs its function. As such, no new
or different types of equipment will be
installed, and the basic operation of
installed equipment is unchanged. The
methods governing plant operation and
testing remain consistent with current
safety analysis assumptions.
[* * *]
The proposed change to add LCO
3.0.8 allows a delay time before
declaring supported TS systems
inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform the required
safety function. The proposed change
does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
equipment will be installed) or a change
in the methods governing normal plant
operation.
Therefore, this change does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve
a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to relocate
TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is administrative
in nature, does not negate any existing
requirement, and does not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or
the reliability of the equipment assumed
to operate in the safety analysis. As
such, there are no changes being made
to safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a
result of the proposed change. Margins
of safety are unaffected by requirements
that are retained, but relocated from the
TS to the TRM.
[* * *]
The proposed change to add LCO
3.0.8 to TS allows a delay time before
declaring supported TS systems
inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform the required
safety function. The proposed change
retains an allowance in the current
VYNPS TS while upgrading it to be
more conservative for snubbers
supporting multiple trains or subsystems of an associated system. The
updated TS will continue to provide an
adequate margin of safety for plant
operation upon incorporation of LCO
3.0.8. The station design and safety
analysis assumptions provide margin in
the form of redundancy to account for
periods of time when system capability
is reduced. This proposed change does
not reduce that margin.
Therefore, this 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 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Travis C.
McCullough, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400
Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
Branch Chief: Richard Laufer.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(EGC), Docket No. 50–374, LaSalle
County Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 21,
2006.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section
5.5.13, ‘‘Primary Containment Leakage
Rate Testing Program,’’ to reflect a onetime extension of the LaSalle County
Station (LSCS), Unit 2 primary
containment Type A integrated leak rate
test (ILRT) date from the current
requirement of no later than December
7, 2008, to prior to startup following the
twelfth LSCS, Unit 2 refueling outage
(L2R12).
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 change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will revise
LSCS, Unit 2, TS 5.5.13, ‘‘Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,’’ to reflect a one-time
extension of the primary containment
Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT)
date to ‘‘prior to startup following
L2R12.’’ The current Type A ILRT
interval of 15 years, based on past
performance, would be extended on a
one-time basis by approximately 2% of
the current interval.
The function of the primary
containment is to isolate and contain
fission products released from the
reactor Primary Coolant System (PCS)
following a design basis Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) and to confine the
postulated release of radioactive
material to within limits. The test
interval associated with Type A ILRTs
is not a precursor of any accident
previously evaluated. Type A ILRTs
provide assurance that the LSCS Unit 2
primary containment will not exceed
allowable leakage rate values specified
in the TS and will continue to perform
their design function following an
accident. The risk assessment of the
proposed changes has concluded that
there is an insignificant increase in total
population dose rate and an
insignificant increase in the conditional
containment failure probability.
Therefore, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
2. Does the change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for a one-time
extension of the Type A ILRT for LSCS
Unit 2 will not affect the control
parameters governing unit operation or
the response of plant equipment to
transient and accident conditions. The
proposed changes do not introduce any
new equipment, modes of system
operation or failure mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed changes do
not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
LSCS Unit 2 is a General Electric
BWR/5 plant with a Mark II primary
containment. The Mark II primary
containment consists of two
compartments, the drywell and the
suppression chamber. The drywell has
the shape of a truncated cone, and is
located above the cylindrically shaped
suppression chamber. The primary
containment is penetrated by access,
piping and electrical penetrations.
The integrity of the primary
containment penetrations and isolation
valves is verified through Type B and
Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) and
the overall leak tight integrity of the
primary containment is verified by a
Type A ILRT, as required by 10 CFR 50,
Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor
Containment Leakage Testing for WaterCooled Power Reactors.’’ These tests are
performed to verify the essentially leak
tight characteristics of the primary
containment at the design basis accident
pressure. The proposed changes for a
one-time extension of the Type A ILRTs
do not affect the method for Type A, B
or C testing or the test acceptance
criteria.
EGC has conducted a risk assessment
to determine the impact of a change to
the LSCS Unit 2 Type A ILRT schedule
from a baseline ILRT frequency of three
times in ten years to once in 16.25 years
(i.e., 15 years plus 15 months) for the
risk measures of Large Early Release
Frequency (i.e., LERF), Total Population
Dose, and Conditional Containment
Failure Probability (i.e., CCFP). This
assessment indicated that the proposed
LSCS ILRT interval extension has a
minimal impact on public risk.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32605
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J.
Fewell, Assistant General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200
Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Daniel S. Collins
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 1,
2006.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 1.1,
‘‘Definitions,’’ TS 3.4.13, ‘‘RCS [reactor
coolant system] Operational Leakage,’’
TS 5.5.8, ‘‘Steam Generator Program,’’
and add new specifications (TS 3.4.17)
for ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Tube
Integrity’’ and (TS 5.6.7) for ‘‘Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report.’’ The
proposed changes are necessary in order
to implement the guidance for the
industry initiative on Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 97–06, ‘‘Steam Generator
Program Guidelines.’’
The NRC staff issued a notice of
opportunity for comment in the Federal
Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR
10298), on possible amendments
adopting Technical Specification Task
Force Change Traveller 449, including a
model safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination, using the
consolidated line item improvement
process. The NRC staff subsequently
issued a notice of availability of the
models for referencing in license
amendment applications in the Federal
Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126).
The licensee affirmed the applicability
of the following NSHC determination in
its application dated May 1, 2006.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does
Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an
Accident Previously Evaluated
The proposed change requires an SG
Program that includes performance
criteria that will provide reasonable
assurance that the SG tubing will retain
integrity over the full range of operating
conditions (including startup, operation
in the power range, hot standby,
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32606
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
cooldown and all anticipated transients
included in the design specification).
The SG performance criteria are based
on tube structural integrity, accident
induced leakage, and operational
LEAKAGE.
An SGTR [steam generator tube
rupture] event is one of the design basis
accidents that are analyzed as part of a
plant’s licensing basis. In the analysis of
a SGTR event, a bounding primary to
secondary LEAKAGE rate equal to the
operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the
licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate
associated with a double-ended rupture
of a single tube is assumed.
For other design basis accidents such
as MSLB [main steam line break], rod
ejection, and reactor coolant pump
locked rotor the tubes are assumed to
retain their structural integrity (i.e., they
are assumed not to rupture). These
analyses typically assume that primary
to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1
gallon per minute or increases to 1
gallon per minute as a result of accident
induced stresses. The accident induced
leakage criterion introduced by the
proposed changes accounts for tubes
that may leak during design basis
accidents. The accident induced leakage
criterion limits this leakage to no more
than the value assumed in the accident
analysis.
The SG performance criteria proposed
change to the TS identify the standards
against which tube integrity is to be
measured. Meeting the performance
criteria provides reasonable assurance
that the SG tubing will remain capable
of fulfilling its specific safety function
of maintaining reactor coolant pressure
boundary integrity throughout each
operating cycle and in the unlikely
event of a design basis accident. The
performance criteria are only a part of
the SG Program required by the
proposed change to the TS. The
program, defined by NEI 97–06, Steam
Generator Program Guidelines, includes
a framework that incorporates a balance
of prevention, inspection, evaluation,
repair, and leakage monitoring. The
proposed changes do not, therefore,
significantly increase the probability of
an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of design basis
accidents are, in part, functions of the
DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 in the
primary coolant and the primary to
secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting
from an accident. Therefore, limits are
included in the plant technical
specifications for operational leakage
and for DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 in
primary coolant to ensure the plant is
operated within its analyzed condition.
The typical analysis of the limiting
design basis accident assumes that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
primary to secondary leak rate after the
accident is 1 gallon per minute with no
more than [500 gallons per day or 720
gallons per day] in any one SG, and that
the reactor coolant activity levels of
DOSE EQUIVALENT I–131 are at the TS
values before the accident.
The proposed change does not affect
the design of the SGs, their method of
operation, or primary coolant chemistry
controls. The proposed approach
updates the current TSs and enhances
the requirements for SG inspections.
The proposed change does not adversely
impact any other previously evaluated
design basis accident and is an
improvement over the current TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does
not affect the consequences of a SGTR
accident and the probability of such an
accident is reduced. In addition, the
proposed changes do not affect the
consequences of an MSLB, rod ejection,
or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor
event, or other previously evaluated
accident.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does
Not Create the Possibility of a New or
Different Kind of Accident From Any
Previously Evaluated
The proposed performance based
requirements are an improvement over
the requirements imposed by the
current technical specifications.
Implementation of the proposed SG
Program will not introduce any adverse
changes to the plant design basis or
postulated accidents resulting from
potential tube degradation. The result of
the implementation of the SG Program
will be an enhancement of SG tube
performance. Primary to secondary
LEAKAGE that may be experienced
during all plant conditions will be
monitored to ensure it remains within
current accident analysis assumptions.
The proposed change does not affect
the design of the SGs, their method of
operation, or primary or secondary
coolant chemistry controls. In addition,
the proposed change does not impact
any other plant system or component.
The change enhances SG inspection
requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or
different [kind] of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does
Not Involve a Significant Reduction in
[a] Margin of Safety
The SG tubes in pressurized water
reactors are an integral part of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary and,
as such, are relied upon to maintain the
primary system’s pressure and
inventory. As part of the reactor coolant
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon
as a heat transfer surface between the
primary and secondary systems such
that residual heat can be removed from
the primary system. In addition, the SG
tubes isolate the radioactive fission
products in the primary coolant from
the secondary system. In summary, the
safety function of an SG is maintained
by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a
function of the design, environment,
and the physical condition of the tube.
The proposed change does not affect
tube design or operating environment.
The proposed change is expected to
result in an improvement in the tube
integrity by implementing the SG
Program to manage SG tube inspection,
assessment, repair, and plugging. The
requirements established by the SG
Program are consistent with those in the
applicable design codes and standards
and are an improvement over the
requirements in the current TSs.
For the above reasons, the margin of
safety is not changed and overall plant
safety will be enhanced by the proposed
change to the TS.
The NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendments request involves
no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Daniel F.
Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW.,
Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC
20005.
NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
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 amendment requests: April
28, 2006.
Description of amendment requests:
The proposed change will increase the
minimum allowed boron concentration
of the spent fuel pool and allow credit
for soluble boron, guide tube inserts
(GT-Inserts) made from borated stainless
steel, and fuel storage patterns in place
of Boraflex.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve
a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Dropped Fuel Assembly
Fuel Misloading
There is no significant increase in the
probability of a fuel assembly drop
accident in the spent fuel pool when
assuming a complete loss of the Boraflex
panels in the spent fuel pool racks and
considering the presence of soluble
boron in the spent fuel pool water for
criticality control.
Neither the presence of soluble boron
in the spent fuel pool water, nor the
placement of borated stainless steel
guide tube inserts (GT-Inserts) in the
fuel assemblies for criticality control,
will increase the probability of a fuel
assembly drop accident. The handling
of the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel
pool has always been performed in
borated water, and the quantity of
Boraflex remaining in the racks or GTInserts placed in the fuel assemblies,
has no affect on the probability of such
a drop accident.
Southern California Edison (SCE) has
performed a criticality analysis which
shows that the consequences of a fuel
assembly drop accident in the spent fuel
pool are not affected when considering
a complete loss of the Boraflex in the
spent fuel racks and the presence of
soluble boron. The rack Keff remains less
than or equal to 0.95.
The fuel, the fuel rack, and the fuel
pool qualifications have been evaluated
and determined to be unaffected by the
installation of the GT-Inserts. The
mechanical design configuration of the
GT-Inserts is similar to the shape, size,
and weight of a control element
assembly (CEA) finger. Each of the GTInserts are approximately 0.78 inch
outside diameter (OD) solid stainless
steel, with a boron content of
approximately 2 weight percent (w/o). A
small counterbore is machined at the
top for handling and a rounded bottom
is machined. The OD of these GT-Inserts
is less than that of a CEA finger. The
material (borated stainless steel) is
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) approved and has
been licensed by the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
for use in spent fuel storage
technologies and spent fuel pools. The
structural effect of the weight of the GTInserts on the fuel, the fuel rack, and the
fuel pool structural interfaces and drop
qualifications are unaffected. This is
because the addition of five GT-Inserts
(which increases the dry weight of a fuel
assembly by 110 lbs.) brings the total
weight to 1551 lbs. which is enveloped
by the 2904 lbs. assumed in the
calculation for fuel rack design.
There is no significant increase in the
probability of the accidental misloading
of spent fuel assemblies into the spent
fuel racks when assuming a complete
loss of the Boraflex panels and
considering the presence of soluble
boron in the pool water for criticality
control. Fuel assembly placement will
continue to be controlled pursuant to
approved fuel handling procedures and
will be in accordance with Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.18[,] ‘‘Spent Fuel
Assembly Storage[,]’’ and Licensee
Controlled Specification (LCS) 4.0.100,
‘‘Fuel Storage Patterns,’’ which will
specify spent fuel rack storage
configuration limitations.
There is no increase in the
consequences of the accidental
misloading of a spent fuel assembly into
the spent fuel racks. The criticality
analysis, performed by SCE,
demonstrates that the pool Keff will be
maintained less than or equal to 0.95
following an accidental misloading by
the boron concentration of the pool. The
proposed TS 3.7.17[,] ‘‘Fuel Storage
Pool Boron Concentration[,]’’ will
ensure that an adequate spent fuel pool
boron concentration is maintained.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Change in Spent Fuel Temperature
There is no significant increase in the
probability of either the loss of normal
cooling to the spent fuel pool water or
a decrease in pool water temperature
from a large emergency makeup when
assuming a complete loss of the Boraflex
panels and considering the presence of
soluble boron in the spent fuel pool
water. A high proposed concentration
(>2000 parts per million (ppm)) of
soluble boron is consistent with current
operating practices maintained in the
spent fuel pool water. The proposed
minimum boron concentration of 2000
ppm in TS 3.7.17 will ensure that an
adequate concentration is maintained in
the spent fuel pools.
A loss of normal cooling to the spent
fuel pool water causes an increase in the
temperature of the water passing
through the stored fuel assemblies. This
causes a decrease in the water density,
and when coupled with the assumption
of a complete loss of Boraflex, may
result in a positive reactivity addition.
However, the additional negative
reactivity provided by the boron
concentration limit in the proposed TS
3.7.17 will compensate for the increased
reactivity which could result from a loss
of spent fuel pool cooling. Because
adequate soluble boron will be
maintained in the spent fuel pool water
to maintain Keff less than or equal to
0.95, the consequences of a loss of
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32607
normal cooling to the spent fuel pool
will not be increased.
The thermal considerations of the fuel
are unaffected by the presence of the
GT-Inserts because the guide tube is
designed for the presence of a CEA;
therefore, it is not a primary coolant
flow area. The fuel rack normal thermal
cooling and malfunctioned blocked
cooling scenarios are unaffected by the
presence of the GT-Inserts in the fuel
assemblies.
The proposed change does not
involve an 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 consideration of criticality
accidents in the spent fuel pool are not
new or different. They have been
analyzed in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) and in
previous submittals to the NRC. Specific
accidents considered and evaluated
include fuel assembly drop, fuel
assembly misloading in the racks, and
spent fuel pool water temperature
changes.
The possibility for creating a new or
different kind of accident is not
credible. Neither Boraflex [n]or soluble
boron are accident initiators. The
proposed change takes credit for soluble
boron in the spent fuel pool while
maintaining the necessary margin of
safety. Because soluble boron has
always been present in the spent fuel
pool, a dilution of the spent fuel pool
soluble boron has always been a
possibility. However, a criticality
accident resulting from a dilution
accident was not considered credible.
For this proposed amendment, SCE
performed a spent fuel pool dilution
analysis, which demonstrated that a
dilution of the boron concentration in
the spent fuel pool water which could
increase the rack Keff to greater than 0.95
(constituting a reduction of the required
margin to criticality) is not a credible
event. The requirement to maintain
boron concentration in the spent fuel
pool water for reactivity control will
have no effect on normal pool
operations and maintenance. There are
no changes in equipment design or
plant configuration.
The possibility of accidentally
withdrawing a GT-Insert is minimized
because special tooling is required to
remove it, and it is completely
contained within the guide tubes of the
designated assemblies. Potential
misloading of the GT-Inserts is
minimized due to the design of the
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
32608
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
installation equipment, procedural
controls, and double verification that
will be in place to ensure the GT-Inserts
are installed properly.
The possibility of accidentally
withdrawing a CEA is minimized
because specialized tooling is required
for withdrawing a CEA from a fuel
assembly. It is physically possible for
the spent fuel handling tool to bind on
a CEA after ungrappling from a fuel
assembly and raising the tool. However,
existing SONGS [San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station] procedures require
that the operator validate ‘‘tool weight
only’’ on the spent fuel handling
machine’s load cell read out after
ungrappling from a fuel assembly and
raising the hoist slightly, and to report
this information to the engineer
directing the fuel movement.
Therefore, the proposed change will
not result in 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 TS changes proposed by this
license amendment request and the
resulting spent fuel storage operation
limits will provide adequate safety
margin to ensure that the stored fuel
assembly array will always remain
subcritical. Those limits are based on a
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) Units 2 and 3 plant specific
analysis that was performed in
accordance with a methodology
previously approved by the NRC.
The proposed change takes partial
credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel
pool. SCE’s analyses show that spent
fuel storage requirements meet the
following NRC acceptance criteria for
preventing criticality outside the
reactor.
(1) The neutron multiplication factor,
Keff, including all uncertainties, shall be
less than 1.0 when flooded with
unborated water, and
(2) The neutron multiplication factor,
Keff, including all uncertainties, shall be
less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded
with borated water.
The criticality analysis utilized credit
for soluble boron to ensure Keff will be
less than or equal to 0.95 under normal
circumstances, and storage
configurations have been defined using
a 95/95 Keff calculation to ensure that
the spent fuel rack will be less than 1.0
with no soluble boron. Soluble boron
credit is used to provide safety margin
by maintaining Keff less than or equal to
0.95 including uncertainties,
tolerances[,] and accident conditions in
the presence of spent fuel pool soluble
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
boron. SCE evaluated the loss of a
substantial amount of soluble boron
from the spent fuel pool water which
could lead to Keff exceeding 0.95 and
showed that it was not credible.
Also, the spent fuel rack Keff will
remain less than 1.0 with the spent fuel
pool flooded with unborated water.
Decay heat, radiological effects, and
seismic loads are unchanged by the
absence of Boraflex.
The mechanical properties and the
weight of the fuel assemblies remain
essentially unchanged with the
inclusion of the weight of five GTInserts per assembly. The original
mechanical and thermal analysis of the
fuel assembly/fuel rack and fuel pool
building interfaces currently approved
remain valid and conservative.
Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in
the plant’s 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.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K.
Porter, Esquire, Southern California
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: March
30, 2006.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments revise
Technical Specification 3.3.3.6,
‘‘Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,’’
with respect to the required action for
inoperable Wide Range Reactor Coolant
Temperature, Wide Range Steam
Generator Water Level, and Auxiliary
Feedwater (AFW) Flow.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
(1) Does the proposed change involve
a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in the allowed
outage times for the Reactor Coolant
Outlet Temperature—Wide Range,
Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—
Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water]
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Level—Wide Range, and the AFW Flow
does not involve a significant increase
in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated because these are
accident monitoring functions that have
no effect on the potential for accident
initiation. The proposed deletion of the
existing requirements in ACTION 38 is
an administrative change. Since these
requirements are not currently applied
to any plant equipment, this change
cannot affect the probability of any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed increase in the allowed
outage times for the Reactor Coolant
Outlet Temperature—Wide Range,
Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—
Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water]
Level—Wide Range, and AFW Flow
does not involve a significant increase
in the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated because the
availability of redundant and diverse
indications provides adequate assurance
that the operator will be able to
determine the post-accident status of the
secondary heat sink.
The proposed deletion of the existing
requirements in ACTION 38 is an
administrative change. Since these
requirements are not currently applied
to any plant equipment, this change
cannot affect the consequence of any
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 increase in the allowed
outage times for the Reactor Coolant
Outlet Temperature—Wide Range,
Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—
Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water]
Level—Wide Range, and the AFW Flow
does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind accident from any
accident previously evaluated because
the proposed change affects only the
allowed outage time for accident
monitoring instrumentation and
involves no changes to plant design,
plant configuration or operating
procedures.
The proposed deletion of the existing
requirements in ACTION 38 is an
administrative change. Since these
requirements are not currently applied
to any plant equipment, this change
cannot create the possibility of any kind
of accident.
(3) Does the proposed change involve
a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in the allowed
outage times for the Reactor Coolant
Outlet Temperature—Wide Range,
Reactor Coolant Inlet Temperature—
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water]
Level—Wide Range, and AFW Flow
does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety because the
availability of redundant and diverse
indications provides adequate assurance
that the operator will be able to
determine the post-accident status of the
secondary heat sink.
The proposed deletion of the existing
requirements in ACTION 38 is an
administrative change. Since these
requirements are not currently applied
to any plant equipment, this change
cannot affect the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the standards of
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
the NRC staff proposes to determine that
the request for amendments involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman,
Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
TXU Generation Company LP, Docket
Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche
Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and
2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: February
21, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6.5 entitled, ‘‘Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ to
revise the listed Loss-of-Coolant
Accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA
analysis methodologies used at
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 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. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves an
administrative change only. Designation
of the accident analysis methodologies,
described in ERX–04–004 and ERX–04–
005, as approved analytical methods is
required to maintain the accuracy of the
Technical Specification 5.6.5 (Core
Operating Limits Report) and to
maintain consistency with the
resolution of issues as prescribed in 10
CFR 50.46. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves an
administrative change only. Technical
Specification 5.6.5 is being changed to
reference the revised accident analysis
methodologies currently under NRC
review. No actual plant equipment will
be affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel and fuel
cladding, Reactor Coolant System
pressure boundary, and containment
structure) to limit the level of radiation
dose to the public. This request involves
an administrative change (subject to
NRC approval) only to incorporate the
NRC-approved methodologies into the
allowable analysis methodologies
specified in Technical Specification
5.6.5. No actual plant equipment will be
affected by the proposed change. The
compliance of the revised methodology
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46
and Appendix K will be addressed
through the NRC staff’s review of the
topical reports. Therefore, it is
concluded that the use of the proposed
methodology will not degrade the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. Therefore
the proposed change does not involve a
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: George L. Edgar,
Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800
M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
TXU Generation Company LP, Docket
Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche
Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and
2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: February
21, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments would revise Technical
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32609
Specifications (TS) 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.5,
3.4.6, and 3.4.7, ‘‘Reactor Trip System
(RTS) Instrumentation,’’ ‘‘Engineered
Safety Feature System Actuation
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,’’ ‘‘RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] Mode 3,’’
‘‘RCS Loops-Mode 4,’’ and ‘‘RCS LoopsMode 5, Loops Filled,’’ respectively.
The revisions reflect the different steam
generator water level trip setpoints and
steam generator inventory requirements
associated with the planned
replacement of the steam generators in
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
Unit 1.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes affect the
protective and mitigative capabilities of
the plant; none of the changes impact
the initiation or probability of
occurrence of any accident.
The consequences of accidents
evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety
Analysis Report] that could be affected
by this proposed change are those in
which the steam generator water level
trip functions are credited for initiating
a protective or mitigative function.
These transients and accidents have
been analyzed and all relevant event
acceptance criteria were shown to be
satisfied. The radiological dose
consequences are unaffected. Therefore,
there is no increase in the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The actual proposed setpoint values
were determined using an uncertainty
methodology previously approved by
the NRC for this application. These
values provide adequate assurance that
required protective and mitigative
functions will be initiated as assumed in
the transient and accident analyses.
Therefore, there is no increase in the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed revisions to the D76
steam generator inventory, required to
ensure that the steam generators can
provide an effective heat sink, are
consistent with the current design
requirements. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32610
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, transient
precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as
a result of these changes. There will be
no adverse effect or challenges imposed
on any safety-related system as a result
of these changes. There are no changes
which would cause the malfunction of
safety-related equipment, assumed to be
operable in the accident analyses, as a
result of the proposed Technical
Specification changes. No new
equipment performance burdens are
imposed. The possibility of a new or
different malfunction of safety-related
equipment is not created. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Steam
Generator Water Level-Low-Low and
Steam Generator Water Level-High-High
trip function setpoints protect the
assumed safety analysis limits
established in the transient and accident
analyses. When used in the transient
and accident analyses, all relevant event
acceptance criteria are satisfied.
Therefore, these proposed changes do
not result in the reduction in a margin
of safety.
The proposed changes to the D76
steam generator inventory requirements,
which ensure the steam generators can
function as an effective heat sink during
required shutdown operating modes, are
consistent with the existing design and
licensing bases. Therefore, these
proposed changes do not result in the
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: George L. Edgar,
Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800
M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously
published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice
in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Georgia Power Company, Docket Nos.
50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: March
17, 2006.
Brief description of amendment
request: The proposed amendment
would add a license condition to
Section 2.C of the Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Operating Licenses. This license
condition will authorize the licensee to
credit administering potassium iodide
(KI) to reduce the 30-day post-accident
thyroid radiological dose to the
operators in the main control room for
an interim period of approximately 4
years. In addition, the design-basis
accident analysis section of the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Reports will be
updated to reflect crediting of KI.
Date of publication of individual
notice in Federal Register: March 27,
2006 (71 FR 15223).
Expiration date of individual notice:
30-day date April 26, 2006; 60-day date
May 26, 2006.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://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
pdr@nrc.gov.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458,
River Bend Station, Unit 1, West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request:
December 19, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) to make permanent
the temporary changes to TS Table
3.3.8.1–1 previously approved by
Amendment No. 147. TS Table 3.3.8.1–
1 is revised to delete the temporary
note, correct the number of Required
Channels per Division for the Loss of
Power (LOP) time delay functions, and
delete the requirement to perform
Surveillance Requirement 3.3.8.1.2, the
monthly Channel Functional Test, on
certain LOP time delay functions.
Date of issuance: May 17, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to expiration of the temporary
change on June 1, 2006, provided by
Amendment No. 147.
Amendment No.: 151.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the
Technical Specfications.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR
13173).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–278,
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
Unit 3, York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
July 6, 2005, as supplemented March 15
and April 7, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The
proposed changes extend the use of the
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
Unit 3, pressure-temperature (P–T)
limits specified in the Technical
Specifications (TSs) from 22 to 32
effective full-power years.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 263.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–56: The amendment revised
the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44402).
The supplements dated March 15, 2006,
and April 7, 2006, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination. The
Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated May 12, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Florida Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant,
Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendment:
October 21, 2005, as supplemented
February 28, March 28 and April 24,
2006.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Operating
License and Technical Specifications to
allow operation of St. Lucie Unit 2 with
a reduced reactor coolant system flow
rate of 300,000 gpm and a reduction in
the maximum thermal power to 89
percent of the rated thermal power. The
flow rate of 300,000 gpm conservatively
bounds an analyzed steam generator
tube plugging level of 42 percent per
steam generator.
Date of Issuance: May 16, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 145.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–16: Amendment revised the
TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 20, 2005 (70 FR
75492). The February 28, March 28 and
April 24, 2006, supplements did not
affect the original proposed no
significant hazards determination, or
expand the scope of the request as
noticed in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No.
50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request:
September 22, 2005, as supplemented
by letters dated March 24, 2006, and
April 28, 2006.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment revised the
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 Technical
Specifications (TSS) to increase the
licensed thermal power level by 1.7% to
3648 megawatts thermal.
Date of issuance: May 22, 2006.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 12 months.
Amendment No.: 110.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
86: The amendment revised the Tss and
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 8, 2005 (70 FR
67748). The licensee’s letters dated
March 24, 2006, and April 28, 2006,
provided clarifying information that did
not change the scope of the proposed
amendment as described in the original
notice of proposed action published in
the Federal Register, and did not
change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments:
July 29, 2005.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32611
Specification 3.7.5, ‘‘Auxiliary
Feedwater (AFW) System,’’ to change
the frequency of Surveillance
Requirement 3.7.5.6 from 92 days to 24
months.
Date of issuance: May 17, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 186 and 188.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
80 and DPR–82: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 11, 2005 (70 FR
59086).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment:
November 29, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: This
amendment for V. C. Summer revises
TSs by eliminating the requirements to
submit monthly operating reports and
certain annual reports.
Date of issuance: May 19, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 175.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–12: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR
13178).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,
Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment:
December 13, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment changes the steam generator
(SG) level requirement for Limiting
Condition for Operation 3.4.7.b and
Surveillance Requirements 3.4.5.2,
3.4.6.3 and 3.4.7.2 from greater than or
equal (≥) to 6 percent (%) to ≥ 32%
following replacement of the SGs during
the Unit 1, Cycle 7 refueling outage.
Date of issuance: May 5, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to entering Mode 5 upon restart
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32612
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I,
which are set forth in the license
amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency
circumstances associated with the date
the amendment was needed, there was
not time for the Commission to publish,
for public comment before issuance, its
usual Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the
Commission has either issued a Federal
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et Register notice providing opportunity
al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281,
for public comment or has used local
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2,
media to provide notice to the public in
Surry County, Virginia
the area surrounding a licensee’s facility
Date of application for amendments:
of the licensee’s application and of the
Commission’s proposed determination
March 8, 2005.
Brief description of amendments:
of no significant hazards consideration.
These amendments revised the auxiliary The Commission has provided a
feedwater (AFW) requirements of
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.6,
available to the public means of
‘‘Turbine Cycle,’’ and 4.8, ‘‘Auxiliary
communication for the public to
Feedwater System,’’ to eliminate the
respond quickly, and in the case of
inconsistency between the AFW pump
telephone comments, the comments
requirements and the required actions,
establish consistency with the Improved have been recorded or transcribed as
TSs, and add an AFW flowpath allowed appropriate and the licensee has been
outage time along with required actions. informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act
Date of issuance: February 23, 2006.
in a timely way would have resulted, for
Effective date: As of the date of
example, in derating or shutdown of a
issuance and shall be implemented
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
within 60 days.
either resumption of operation or of
Amendment Nos.: 246 and 245.
increase in power output up to the
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments plant’s licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
change the Technical Specifications.
opportunity to provide for public
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21465). comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
The Commission’s related evaluation
case, the license amendment has been
of the amendments is contained in a
issued without opportunity for
Safety Evaluation dated February 23,
comment. If there has been some time
2006.
No significant hazards consideration
for public comment but less than 30
comments received: No.
days, the Commission may provide an
opportunity for public comment. If
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
comments have been requested, it is so
Facility Operating Licenses and Final
stated. In either event, the State has
Determination of No Significant
been consulted by telephone whenever
Hazards Consideration and
possible.
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent
Under its regulations, the Commission
Public Announcement or Emergency
may issue and make an amendment
Circumstances)
immediately effective, notwithstanding
During the period since publication of the pendency before it of a request for
the last biweekly notice, the
a hearing from any person, in advance
Commission has issued the following
of the holding and completion of any
amendments. The Commission has
required hearing, where it has
determined for each of these
determined that no significant hazards
amendments that the application for the consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the
amendment complies with the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
standards and requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
(the Act), and the Commission’s rules
hazards consideration. The basis for this
and regulations. The Commission has
determination is contained in the
made appropriate findings as required
documents related to this action.
by the Act and the Commission’s rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
from the Unit 1 Cycle 7 (U1C7)
Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.: 61.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
90: Amendment revises the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 14, 2006 (71 FR
7814).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 5, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the application for
amendment, (2) the amendment to
Facility Operating License, and (3) the
Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://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
pdr@nrc.gov.
The Commission is also offering an
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, 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,
and electronically on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
are problems in accessing the document,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene
is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also
provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.1
Contentions shall be limited to matters
1 To the extent that the applications contain
attachments and supporting documents that are not
publicly available because they are asserted to
contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information
should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel
and discuss the need for a protective order.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Each contention shall be given a
separate numeric or alpha designation
within one of the following groups:
1. Technical—primarily concerns/
issues relating to technical and/or
health and safety matters discussed or
referenced in the applications.
2. Environmental—primarily
concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the
environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into
one of the categories outlined above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two
or more petitioners/requestors seek to
co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/
requestors shall jointly designate a
representative who shall have the
authority to act for the petitioners/
requestors with respect to that
contention. If a petitioner/requestor
seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the
petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt
the contention must either agree that the
sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act
as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the
sponsoring petitioner/requestor a
representative who shall have the
authority to act for the petitioners/
requestors with respect to that
contention.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has
made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, if a hearing is
requested, it will not stay the
effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the
amendment is in effect.
A request for 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
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32613
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 the attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer or
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).
Southern California Edison Company, et
al., Docket No. 50–362, San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, San
Diego County, California
Date of amendment request: May 4,
2006.
Description of amendment request:
Allowed repairing a line in the
shutdown cooling (SDC) system with
the unit in Mode 4. This repair plan
caused Unit 3 to be out of compliance
with the licensing basis of the SDC
system for the limited duration of the
repair, but not to exceed 7 days.
Date of issuance: May 5, 2006.
Effective date: Immediate.
Amendment No.: 194.
Facility Operating License No. (NPF–
15): Amendment revised the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report, Section
5.4.7.1.2.C. with a note that states that
the change is only applicable from the
date of issuance of the amendment until
the repair is completed on the SDC line
or 7 days, whichever occurs first.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No. The
Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment, finding of emergency
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 5,
2006.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K.
Porter, Esquire, Southern California
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32614
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 2006 / Notices
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of May 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–8450 Filed 6–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Regulatory Guide: Issuance,
Availability
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued a new
guide in the agency’s Regulatory Guide
Series. This series has been developed
to describe and make available to the
public such information as methods that
are acceptable to the NRC staff for
implementing specific parts of the
NRC’s regulations, techniques that the
staff uses in evaluating specific
problems or postulated accidents, and
data that the staff needs in its review of
applications for permits and licenses.
Regulatory Guide 1.205, ‘‘RiskInformed, Performance-Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-Water
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ provides
guidance for use in complying with the
requirements that the NRC has
promulgated for risk-informed,
performance-based fire protection
programs that meet the requirements of
Title 10, § 50.48(c), of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.48(c))
and the referenced 2001 Edition of the
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) standard, NFPA 805,
‘‘Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light-Water Reactor
Electric Generating Plants.’’
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(a),
each operating nuclear power plant
must have a fire protection plan that
satisfies General Design Criterion (GDC)
3, ‘‘Fire Protection,’’ of Appendix A,
‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear
Power Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50,
‘‘Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities.’’ In addition,
plants that were licensed to operate
before January 1, 1979, must meet the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix R, ‘‘Fire Protection Program
for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating
Prior to January 1, 1979,’’ except to the
extent provided for in 10 CFR 50.48(b).
Plants licensed to operate after January
1, 1979, are required to comply with 10
CFR 50.48(a), as well as any plantspecific fire protection license condition
and technical specifications.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Jun 05, 2006
Jkt 208001
Section 50.48(c), which the NRC
adopted in 2004 (69 FR 33536, June 16,
2004), incorporates NFPA 805 by
reference, with certain exceptions, and
allows licensees to voluntarily adopt
and maintain a fire protection program
that meets the requirements of NFPA
805 as an alternative to meeting the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(b) or the
plant-specific fire protection license
conditions. Licensees who choose to
comply with 10 CFR 50.48(c) must
submit a license amendment application
to the NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR
50.90. Section 50.48(c)(3) describes the
required content of the application.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
has developed NEI 04–02, ‘‘Guidance
for Implementing a Risk-Informed,
Performance-Based Fire Protection
Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c),’’
Revision 1, dated September 2005, to
assist licensees in adopting 10 CFR
50.48(c) and making the transition from
their current fire protection program
(FPP) to one based on NFPA 805. This
regulatory guide endorses NEI 04–02,
Revision 1, because it provides methods
acceptable to the NRC for implementing
NFPA 805 and complying with 10 CFR
50.48(c), subject to the additional
regulatory positions contained in
Section C of this regulatory guide and
the approval authority that 10 CFR
50.48(c) grants to the authority having
jurisdiction (AHJ). The regulatory
positions in Section C include
clarification of the guidance provided in
NEI 04–02, as well as any NRC
exceptions to the guidance. The
regulatory positions in Section C take
precedence over the NEI 04–02
guidance.
All references to NEI 04–02 in this
regulatory guide refer to Revision 1 of
NEI 04–02. All references to NFPA 805
in this regulatory guide refer to the 2001
Edition of NFPA.
The NRC previously solicited public
comment on this new guide by
publishing a Federal Register notice (69
FR 60192) concerning Draft Regulatory
Guide DG–1139 on October 7, 2004.
Following the closure of the public
comment period on December 15, 2004,
the staff considered all stakeholder
comments in the course of preparing
Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC staff’s
responses to public comments received
on the draft regulatory guide are
available electronically in the NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html, under Accession
#ML061100235. In particular, the
revisions in this new guide include
additional guidance regarding the plant
change process, including risk
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acceptance thresholds for changes that
may be made without prior NRC review
and approval. In addition, this new
guide includes guidance for the fire
probabilistic safety analyses that
licensees use to risk-inform the fire
protection program.
The NRC staff encourages and
welcomes comments and suggestions in
connection with improvements to
published regulatory guides, as well as
items for inclusion in regulatory guides
that are currently being developed. You
may submit comments by any of the
following methods.
Mail comments to: Rules and
Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and
Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, between
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal
workdays.
Fax comments to: Rules and
Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, at (301) 415–5144.
Requests for technical information
about Regulatory Guide 1.205 may be
directed to Paul W. Lain at (301) 415–
2346 or via e-mail to PWL@nrc.gov.
Regulatory guides are available for
inspection or downloading through the
NRC’s public Web site in the Regulatory
Guides document collection of the
NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections. Regulatory Guide 1.205 is
also available electronically in the
NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html, under Accession
#ML061100174.
In addition, regulatory guides are
available for inspection at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), which is
located at 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland; the PDR’s mailing
address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC
20555–0001. The PDR can also be
reached by telephone at (301) 415–4737
or (800) 397–4205, by fax at (301) 415–
3548, and by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov.
Requests for single copies of draft or
final guides (which may be reproduced)
or for placement on an automatic
distribution list for single copies of
future draft guides in specific divisions
should be made in writing to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Reproduction and Distribution Services
Section; by e-mail to
DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32602-32614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8450]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from May 12, 2006 to May 24, 2006. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29671).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination. 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.
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, 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 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The
filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene
is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
[[Page 32603]]
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for 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 the attorney for the
licensee.
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).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
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 pdr@nrc.gov.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendments request: April 26, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify technical specification (TS) requirements for inoperable
snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.8. The changes
are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Industry/
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) standard TS change TSTF-372,
Revision 4.
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252). The licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application
dated April 26, 2006.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration 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 allows a delay time before declaring supported
TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its
required safety function. Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance
into Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated.
Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated
is not significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while
relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported
system inoperable and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no
different than the consequences of an accident under the same plant
conditions while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions
and Required Actions.
[[Page 32604]]
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported
TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its
required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operations. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported
TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its
required safety function. The proposed change restores an allowance in
the pre-ISTS conversion TS that was unintentionally eliminated by the
conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to provide an adequate
margin of safety for plant operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion
TS. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael L. Marshall, Jr.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS), Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: April 22, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
relocate the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for shock
suppressors (snubbers) to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) and
add a new Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to relocate TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is
administrative in nature and does not involve the modification of any
plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. Snubber operability
and surveillance requirements will be contained in the TRM to ensure
design assumptions for accident mitigation are maintained.
The proposed change to add LCO 3.0.8 allows a delay time before
declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform the required safety function. Entrance into
actions or delaying entrance into actions is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
station design and safety analysis assumptions included provisions for
redundancy to provide for periods when redundant systems are out-of-
service per the TS. The proposed snubber LCO ensures that out-of-
service time is minimized and risk is managed per 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly increased by this change.
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 to relocate TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is
administrative and does not involve any physical alteration of plant
equipment. The proposed change does not change the method by which any
safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or
different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation
of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant
operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis
assumptions.
[* * *]
The proposed change to add LCO 3.0.8 allows a delay time before
declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform the required safety function. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to relocate TS 3/4.6.1 to the TRM is
administrative in nature, does not negate any existing requirement, and
does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the
reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis.
As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
Margins of safety are unaffected by requirements that are retained, but
relocated from the TS to the TRM.
[* * *]
The proposed change to add LCO 3.0.8 to TS allows a delay time
before declaring supported TS systems inoperable when the associated
snubber(s) cannot perform the required safety function. The proposed
change retains an allowance in the current VYNPS TS while upgrading it
to be more conservative for snubbers supporting multiple trains or sub-
systems of an associated system. The updated TS will continue to
provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation upon
incorporation of LCO 3.0.8. The station design and safety analysis
assumptions provide margin in the form of redundancy to account for
periods of time when system capability is reduced. This proposed change
does not reduce that margin.
Therefore, this 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Travis C. McCullough, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
Branch Chief: Richard Laufer.
[[Page 32605]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket No. 50-374, LaSalle County
Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 21, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.13, ``Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to reflect a one-time
extension of the LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Unit 2 primary
containment Type A integrated leak rate test (ILRT) date from the
current requirement of no later than December 7, 2008, to prior to
startup following the twelfth LSCS, Unit 2 refueling outage (L2R12).
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will revise LSCS, Unit 2, TS 5.5.13, ``Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to reflect a one-time
extension of the primary containment Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test
(ILRT) date to ``prior to startup following L2R12.'' The current Type A
ILRT interval of 15 years, based on past performance, would be extended
on a one-time basis by approximately 2% of the current interval.
The function of the primary containment is to isolate and contain
fission products released from the reactor Primary Coolant System (PCS)
following a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) and to confine
the postulated release of radioactive material to within limits. The
test interval associated with Type A ILRTs is not a precursor of any
accident previously evaluated. Type A ILRTs provide assurance that the
LSCS Unit 2 primary containment will not exceed allowable leakage rate
values specified in the TS and will continue to perform their design
function following an accident. The risk assessment of the proposed
changes has concluded that there is an insignificant increase in total
population dose rate and an insignificant increase in the conditional
containment failure probability.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for a one-time extension of the Type A ILRT
for LSCS Unit 2 will not affect the control parameters governing unit
operation or the response of plant equipment to transient and accident
conditions. The proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment,
modes of system operation or failure mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
LSCS Unit 2 is a General Electric BWR/5 plant with a Mark II
primary containment. The Mark II primary containment consists of two
compartments, the drywell and the suppression chamber. The drywell has
the shape of a truncated cone, and is located above the cylindrically
shaped suppression chamber. The primary containment is penetrated by
access, piping and electrical penetrations.
The integrity of the primary containment penetrations and isolation
valves is verified through Type B and Type C local leak rate tests
(LLRTs) and the overall leak tight integrity of the primary containment
is verified by a Type A ILRT, as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J,
``Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power
Reactors.'' These tests are performed to verify the essentially leak
tight characteristics of the primary containment at the design basis
accident pressure. The proposed changes for a one-time extension of the
Type A ILRTs do not affect the method for Type A, B or C testing or the
test acceptance criteria.
EGC has conducted a risk assessment to determine the impact of a
change to the LSCS Unit 2 Type A ILRT schedule from a baseline ILRT
frequency of three times in ten years to once in 16.25 years (i.e., 15
years plus 15 months) for the risk measures of Large Early Release
Frequency (i.e., LERF), Total Population Dose, and Conditional
Containment Failure Probability (i.e., CCFP). This assessment indicated
that the proposed LSCS ILRT interval extension has a minimal impact on
public risk.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett
Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Daniel S. Collins
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 1, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions,'' TS 3.4.13,
``RCS [reactor coolant system] Operational Leakage,'' TS 5.5.8, ``Steam
Generator Program,'' and add new specifications (TS 3.4.17) for ``Steam
Generator (SG) Tube Integrity'' and (TS 5.6.7) for ``Steam Generator
Tube Inspection Report.'' The proposed changes are necessary in order
to implement the guidance for the industry initiative on Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 97-06, ``Steam Generator Program Guidelines.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), on possible amendments
adopting Technical Specification Task Force Change Traveller 449,
including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination, using the consolidated line item
improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of
availability of the models for referencing in license amendment
applications in the Federal Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24126). The
licensee affirmed the applicability of the following NSHC determination
in its application dated May 1, 2006.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change requires an SG Program that includes
performance criteria that will provide reasonable assurance that the SG
tubing will retain integrity over the full range of operating
conditions (including startup, operation in the power range, hot
standby,
[[Page 32606]]
cooldown and all anticipated transients included in the design
specification). The SG performance criteria are based on tube
structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational
LEAKAGE.
An SGTR [steam generator tube rupture] event is one of the design
basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis.
In the analysis of a SGTR event, a bounding primary to secondary
LEAKAGE rate equal to the operational LEAKAGE rate limits in the
licensing basis plus the LEAKAGE rate associated with a double-ended
rupture of a single tube is assumed.
For other design basis accidents such as MSLB [main steam line
break], rod ejection, and reactor coolant pump locked rotor the tubes
are assumed to retain their structural integrity (i.e., they are
assumed not to rupture). These analyses typically assume that primary
to secondary LEAKAGE for all SGs is 1 gallon per minute or increases to
1 gallon per minute as a result of accident induced stresses. The
accident induced leakage criterion introduced by the proposed changes
accounts for tubes that may leak during design basis accidents. The
accident induced leakage criterion limits this leakage to no more than
the value assumed in the accident analysis.
The SG performance criteria proposed change to the TS identify the
standards against which tube integrity is to be measured. Meeting the
performance criteria provides reasonable assurance that the SG tubing
will remain capable of fulfilling its specific safety function of
maintaining reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity throughout each
operating cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident.
The performance criteria are only a part of the SG Program required by
the proposed change to the TS. The program, defined by NEI 97-06, Steam
Generator Program Guidelines, includes a framework that incorporates a
balance of prevention, inspection, evaluation, repair, and leakage
monitoring. The proposed changes do not, therefore, significantly
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of design basis accidents are, in part, functions
of the DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in the primary coolant and the primary to
secondary LEAKAGE rates resulting from an accident. Therefore, limits
are included in the plant technical specifications for operational
leakage and for DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 in primary coolant to ensure the
plant is operated within its analyzed condition. The typical analysis
of the limiting design basis accident assumes that primary to secondary
leak rate after the accident is 1 gallon per minute with no more than
[500 gallons per day or 720 gallons per day] in any one SG, and that
the reactor coolant activity levels of DOSE EQUIVALENT I-131 are at the
TS values before the accident.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their
method of operation, or primary coolant chemistry controls. The
proposed approach updates the current TSs and enhances the requirements
for SG inspections. The proposed change does not adversely impact any
other previously evaluated design basis accident and is an improvement
over the current TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the consequences of
a SGTR accident and the probability of such an accident is reduced. In
addition, the proposed changes do not affect the consequences of an
MSLB, rod ejection, or a reactor coolant pump locked rotor event, or
other previously evaluated accident.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated
The proposed performance based requirements are an improvement over
the requirements imposed by the current technical specifications.
Implementation of the proposed SG Program will not introduce any
adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents
resulting from potential tube degradation. The result of the
implementation of the SG Program will be an enhancement of SG tube
performance. Primary to secondary LEAKAGE that may be experienced
during all plant conditions will be monitored to ensure it remains
within current accident analysis assumptions.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs, their
method of operation, or primary or secondary coolant chemistry
controls. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other
plant system or component. The change enhances SG inspection
requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different [kind] of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in [a] Margin of Safety
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of
the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to
maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they
are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and
secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the
primary system. In addition, the SG tubes isolate the radioactive
fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In
summary, the safety function of an SG is maintained by ensuring the
integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design,
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The
proposed change is expected to result in an improvement in the tube
integrity by implementing the SG Program to manage SG tube inspection,
assessment, repair, and plugging. The requirements established by the
SG Program are consistent with those in the applicable design codes and
standards and are an improvement over the requirements in the current
TSs.
For the above reasons, the margin of safety is not changed and
overall plant safety will be enhanced by the proposed change to the TS.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Daniel F. Stenger, Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll, LLP, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 1000 South, Washington, DC
20005.
NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer.
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 amendment requests: April 28, 2006.
Description of amendment requests: The proposed change will
increase the minimum allowed boron concentration of the spent fuel pool
and allow credit for soluble boron, guide tube inserts (GT-Inserts)
made from borated stainless steel, and fuel storage patterns in place
of Boraflex.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 32607]]
Dropped Fuel Assembly
There is no significant increase in the probability of a fuel
assembly drop accident in the spent fuel pool when assuming a complete
loss of the Boraflex panels in the spent fuel pool racks and
considering the presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water
for criticality control.
Neither the presence of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water,
nor the placement of borated stainless steel guide tube inserts (GT-
Inserts) in the fuel assemblies for criticality control, will increase
the probability of a fuel assembly drop accident. The handling of the
fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool has always been performed in
borated water, and the quantity of Boraflex remaining in the racks or
GT-Inserts placed in the fuel assemblies, has no affect on the
probability of such a drop accident.
Southern California Edison (SCE) has performed a criticality
analysis which shows that the consequences of a fuel assembly drop
accident in the spent fuel pool are not affected when considering a
complete loss of the Boraflex in the spent fuel racks and the presence
of soluble boron. The rack Keff remains less than or equal
to 0.95.
The fuel, the fuel rack, and the fuel pool qualifications have been
evaluated and determined to be unaffected by the installation of the
GT-Inserts. The mechanical design configuration of the GT-Inserts is
similar to the shape, size, and weight of a control element assembly
(CEA) finger. Each of the GT-Inserts are approximately 0.78 inch
outside diameter (OD) solid stainless steel, with a boron content of
approximately 2 weight percent (w/o). A small counterbore is machined
at the top for handling and a rounded bottom is machined. The OD of
these GT-Inserts is less than that of a CEA finger. The material
(borated stainless steel) is American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) approved and has been licensed by the United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for use in spent fuel storage technologies
and spent fuel pools. The structural effect of the weight of the GT-
Inserts on the fuel, the fuel rack, and the fuel pool structural
interfaces and drop qualifications are unaffected. This is because the
addition of five GT-Inserts (which increases the dry weight of a fuel
assembly by 110 lbs.) brings the total weight to 1551 lbs. which is
enveloped by the 2904 lbs. assumed in the calculation for fuel rack
design.
Fuel Misloading
There is no significant increase in the probability of the
accidental misloading of spent fuel assemblies into the spent fuel
racks when assuming a complete loss of the Boraflex panels and
considering the presence of soluble boron in the pool water for
criticality control. Fuel assembly placement will continue to be
controlled pursuant to approved fuel handling procedures and will be in
accordance with Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.18[,] ``Spent Fuel
Assembly Storage[,]'' and Licensee Controlled Specification (LCS)
4.0.100, ``Fuel Storage Patterns,'' which will specify spent fuel rack
storage configuration limitations.
There is no increase in the consequences of the accidental
misloading of a spent fuel assembly into the spent fuel racks. The
criticality analysis, performed by SCE, demonstrates that the pool
Keff will be maintained less than or equal to 0.95 following
an accidental misloading by the boron concentration of the pool. The
proposed TS 3.7.17[,] ``Fuel Storage Pool Boron Concentration[,]'' will
ensure that an adequate spent fuel pool boron concentration is
maintained.
Change in Spent Fuel Temperature
There is no significant increase in the probability of either the
loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool water or a decrease in
pool water temperature from a large emergency makeup when assuming a
complete loss of the Boraflex panels and considering the presence of
soluble boron in the spent fuel pool water. A high proposed
concentration (>2000 parts per million (ppm)) of soluble boron is
consistent with current operating practices maintained in the spent
fuel pool water. The proposed minimum boron concentration of 2000 ppm
in TS 3.7.17 will ensure that an adequate concentration is maintained
in the spent fuel pools.
A loss of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool water causes an
increase in the temperature of the water passing through the stored
fuel assemblies. This causes a decrease in the water density, and when
coupled with the assumption of a complete loss of Boraflex, may result
in a positive reactivity addition. However, the additional negative
reactivity provided by the boron concentration limit in the proposed TS
3.7.17 will compensate for the increased reactivity which could result
from a loss of spent fuel pool cooling. Because adequate soluble boron
will be maintained in the spent fuel pool water to maintain
Keff less than or equal to 0.95, the consequences of a loss
of normal cooling to the spent fuel pool will not be increased.
The thermal considerations of the fuel are unaffected by the
presence of the GT-Inserts because the guide tube is designed for the
presence of a CEA; therefore, it is not a primary coolant flow area.
The fuel rack normal thermal cooling and malfunctioned blocked cooling
scenarios are unaffected by the presence of the GT-Inserts in the fuel
assemblies.
The proposed change does not involve an 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 consideration of criticality accidents in the spent fuel pool
are not new or different. They have been analyzed in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and in previous submittals to the NRC.
Specific accidents considered and evaluated include fuel assembly drop,
fuel assembly misloading in the racks, and spent fuel pool water
temperature changes.
The possibility for creating a new or different kind of accident is
not credible. Neither Boraflex [n]or soluble boron are accident
initiators. The proposed change takes credit for soluble boron in the
spent fuel pool while maintaining the necessary margin of safety.
Because soluble boron has always been present in the spent fuel pool, a
dilution of the spent fuel pool soluble boron has always been a
possibility. However, a criticality accident resulting from a dilution
accident was not considered credible. For this proposed amendment, SCE
performed a spent fuel pool dilution analysis, which demonstrated that
a dilution of the boron concentration in the spent fuel pool water
which could increase the rack Keff to greater than 0.95
(constituting a reduction of the required margin to criticality) is not
a credible event. The requirement to maintain boron concentration in
the spent fuel pool water for reactivity control will have no effect on
normal pool operations and maintenance. There are no changes in
equipment design or plant configuration.
The possibility of accidentally withdrawing a GT-Insert is
minimized because special tooling is required to remove it, and it is
completely contained within the guide tubes of the designated
assemblies. Potential misloading of the GT-Inserts is minimized due to
the design of the
[[Page 32608]]
installation equipment, procedural controls, and double verification
that will be in place to ensure the GT-Inserts are installed properly.
The possibility of accidentally withdrawing a CEA is minimized
because specialized tooling is required for withdrawing a CEA from a
fuel assembly. It is physically possible for the spent fuel handling
tool to bind on a CEA after ungrappling from a fuel assembly and
raising the tool. However, existing SONGS [San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station] procedures require that the operator validate
``tool weight only'' on the spent fuel handling machine's load cell
read out after ungrappling from a fuel assembly and raising the hoist
slightly, and to report this information to the engineer directing the
fuel movement.
Therefore, the proposed change will not result in 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 TS changes proposed by this license amendment request and the
resulting spent fuel storage operation limits will provide adequate
safety margin to ensure that the stored fuel assembly array will always
remain subcritical. Those limits are based on a San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 plant specific analysis that
was performed in accordance with a methodology previously approved by
the NRC.
The proposed change takes partial credit for soluble boron in the
spent fuel pool. SCE's analyses show that spent fuel storage
requirements meet the following NRC acceptance criteria for preventing
criticality outside the reactor.
(1) The neutron multiplication factor, Keff, including
all uncertainties, shall be less than 1.0 when flooded with unborated
water, and
(2) The neutron multiplication factor, Keff, including
all uncertainties, shall be less than or equal to 0.95 when flooded
with borated water.
The criticality analysis utilized credit for soluble boron to
ensure Keff will be less than or equal to 0.95 under normal
circumstances, and storage configurations have been defined using a 95/
95 Keff calculation to ensure that the spent fuel rack will
be less than 1.0 with no soluble boron. Soluble boron credit is used to
provide safety margin by maintaining Keff less than or equal
to 0.95 including uncertainties, tolerances[,] and accident conditions
in the presence of spent fuel pool soluble boron. SCE evaluated the
loss of a substantial amount of soluble boron from the spent fuel pool
water which could lead to Keff exceeding 0.95 and showed
that it was not credible.
Also, the spent fuel rack Keff will remain less than 1.0
with the spent fuel pool flooded with unborated water.
Decay heat, radiological effects, and seismic loads are unchanged
by the absence of Boraflex.
The mechanical properties and the weight of the fuel assemblies
remain essentially unchanged with the inclusion of the weight of five
GT-Inserts per assembly. The original mechanical and thermal analysis
of the fuel assembly/fuel rack and fuel pool building interfaces
currently approved remain valid and conservative.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the plant's 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.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: March 30, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments revise
Technical Specification 3.3.3.6, ``Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required action for inoperable
Wide Range Reactor Coolant Temperature, Wide Range Steam Generator
Water Level, and Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Flow.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
(1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor
Coolant Outlet Temperature--Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet
Temperature--Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level--Wide Range, and
the AFW Flow does not involve a significant increase in the probability
of an accident previously evaluated because these are accident
monitoring functions that have no effect on the potential for accident
initiation. The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in
ACTION 38 is an administrative change. Since these requirements are not
currently applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot affect the
probability of any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor
Coolant Outlet Temperature--Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet
Temperature--Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level--Wide Range, and
AFW Flow does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated because the availability of redundant
and diverse indications provides adequate assurance that the operator
will be able to determine the post-accident status of the secondary
heat sink.
The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is
an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently
applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot affect the
consequence of any 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 increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor
Coolant Outlet Temperature--Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet
Temperature--Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level--Wide Range, and
the AFW Flow does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed
change affects only the allowed outage time for accident monitoring
instrumentation and involves no changes to plant design, plant
configuration or operating procedures.
The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is
an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently
applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot create the
possibility of any kind of accident.
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in the allowed outage times for the Reactor
Coolant Outlet Temperature--Wide Range, Reactor Coolant Inlet
Temperature--
[[Page 32609]]
Wide Range, Steam Generator [Water] Level--Wide Range, and AFW Flow
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety
because the availability of redundant and diverse indications provides
adequate assurance that the operator will be able to determine the
post-accident status of the secondary heat sink.
The proposed deletion of the existing requirements in ACTION 38 is
an administrative change. Since these requirements are not currently
applied to any plant equipment, this change cannot affect the margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A.H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: February 21, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6.5 entitled, ``Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR),'' to revise the listed Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) and non-
LOCA analysis methodologies used at Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves an administrative change only.
Designation of the accident analysis methodologies, described in ERX-
04-004 and ERX-04-005, as approved analytical methods is required to
maintain the accuracy of the Technical Specification 5.6.5 (Core
Operating Limits Report) and to maintain consistency with the
resolution of issues as prescribed in 10 CFR 50.46. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves an administrative change only.
Technical Specification 5.6.5 is being changed to reference the revised
accident analysis methodologies currently under NRC review. No actual
plant equipment will be affected by the proposed change. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel and fuel cladding, Reactor
Coolant System pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit
the level of radiation dose to the public. This request involves an
administrative change (subject to NRC approval) only to incorporate the
NRC-approved methodologies into the allowable analysis methodologies
specified in Technical Specification 5.6.5. No actual plant equipment
will be affected by the proposed change. The compliance of the revised
methodology with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K will
be addressed through the NRC staff's review of the topical reports.
Therefore, it is concluded that the use of the proposed methodology
will not degrade the confidence in the ability of the fission product
barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. Therefore
the proposed change does not involve a 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: George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
TXU Generation Company LP, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: February 21, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise
Technical Specifications (TS) 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, and 3.4.7,
``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' ``Engineered Safety
Feature System Actuation (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' ``RCS [Reactor
Coolant System] Mode 3,'' ``RCS Loops-Mode 4,'' and ``RCS Loops-Mode 5,
Loops Filled,'' respectively. The revisions reflect the different steam
generator water level trip setpoints and steam generator inventory
requirements associated with the planned replacement of the steam
generators in Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes affect the protective and mitigative
capabilities of the plant; none of the changes impact the initiation or
probability of occurrence of any accident.
The consequences of accidents evaluated in the FSAR [Final Safety
Analysis Report] that could be affected by this proposed change are
those in which the steam generator water level trip functions are
credited for initiating a protective or mitigative function. These
transients and accidents have been analyzed and all relevant event
acceptance criteria were shown to be satisfied. The radiological dose
consequences are unaffected. Therefore, there is no increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The actual proposed setpoint values were determined using an
uncertainty methodology previously approved by the NRC for this
application. These values provide adequate assurance that required
protective and mitigative functions will be initiated as assumed in the
transient and accident analyses. Therefore, there is no increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed revisions to the [Delta]76 steam generator inventory,
required to ensure that the steam generators can provide an effective
heat sink, are consistent with the current design requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of
[[Page 32610]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of
these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on
any safety-related system as a result of these changes. There are no
changes which would cause the malfunction of safety-related equipment,
assumed to be operable in the accident analyses, as a result of the
proposed Technical Specification changes. No new equipment performance
burdens are imposed. The possibility of a new or different malfunction
of safety-related equipment is not created. Therefore, the proposed
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low and
Steam Generator Water Level-High-High trip function setpoints protect
the assumed safety analysis limits established in the transient and
accident analyses. When used in the transient and accident analyses,
all relevant event acceptance criteria are satisfied. Therefore, these
proposed changes do not result in the reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to the [Delta]76 steam generator inventory
requirements, which ensure the steam generators can function as an
effective heat sink during required shutdown operating modes, are
consistent with the existing design and licensing bases. Therefore,
these proposed changes do not result in the 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: George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Georgia Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: March 17, 2006.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would add a license condition to Section 2.C of the Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Operating Licenses. This license
condition will authorize the licensee to credit administering potassium
iodide (KI) to reduce the 30-day post-accident thyroid radiological
dose to the operators in the main control room for an interim period of
approximately 4 years. In addition, the design-basis accident analysis
section of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports will be updated to
reflect crediting of KI.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: March
27, 2006 (71 FR 15223).
Expiration date of individual notice: 30-day date April 26, 2006;
60-day date May 26, 2006.
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 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
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 pdr@nrc.gov.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) to make permanent the temporary changes to TS Table
3.3.8.1-1 previously approved by Amendment No. 147. TS Table 3.3.8.1-1
is revised to delete the temporary note, correct the number of Required
Channels per Division for the Loss of Power (LOP) time delay functions,
and delete the requirement to perform Surveillance Requirement
3.3.8.1.2, the monthly Channel Functional Test, on certain LOP time
delay functions.
Date of issuance: May 17, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to expiration of the temporary change on June 1, 2006, provided
by Amendment No. 147.
Amendment No.: 151.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Technical Specfications.
[[Page 32611]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2006 (71 FR
13173).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: July 6, 2005, as supplemented
March 15 and April 7, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed changes extend the
use of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, pressure-
temperature (P-T) limits specified in the Technical Specifications
(TSs) from 22 to 32 effective full-power years.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2