Omaha Public Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 51646-51648 [E6-14389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51646
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices
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,
Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department,
Duke Power Company LLC, 526 South
Church St., P. O. Box 1006, Mail Code
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28201–1006.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated July 27, 2005, as
supplemented by letters dated May 4,
2006, and August 8, 2006, which are
available for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System’s (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day
of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–14406 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–285]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Omaha Public Power Company; Notice
of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. DPR–
40 issued to Omaha Public Power
Company (the licensee) for operation of
the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1,
located in Washington County,
Nebraska.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications to
allow the use of Sodium Tetraborate
instead of Trisodium Phosphate.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) Involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. 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.
There are no changes to the design or
operation of the plant that could affect
system, component, or accident functions as
a result of replacing trisodium phosphate
(TSP) with sodium tetraborate (NaTB).
Similarly, there are no changes to the design
or operation of the plant affecting system,
component or accident functions as a result
of revising the volume of buffering agent
required during Operating Modes 1 and 2
with an amount dependent upon hot zero
power (HZP) critical boron concentration
(CBC) to make it consistent with the use of
NaTB.
All systems and components function as
designed and the performance requirements
have been evaluated and found to be
acceptable. NaTB will maintain pH ≥7.0 in
the recirculation water following a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA). This function is
maintained with the proposed change.
Allowing the required volume of NaTB to
decrease over the operating cycle (as a result
of densification) as HZP CBC decreases still
ensures that the pH of the containment sump
is ≥7.0.
Further, replacing TSP with NaTB will not
increase the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated. Other than
the Long Term Core Cooling evaluation that
establishes the Hot Leg Switchover (HLSO)
time, no other safety analysis methodology
(LOCA or non-LOCA) specifically models the
containment sump buffering agent. As a
result, the consequences of any accident
(other than determination of the HLSO time)
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
are unaffected by the proposed change to the
containment sump buffering agent. The
analysis to determine the HLSO time
specifically addressed the use of NaTB to
assure it would preclude boron precipitation
in the core and, therefore, preclude any
increase in the consequences of a LOCA.
Analysis demonstrates that a NaTB
buffering agent ensures the post LOCA
containment sump mixture will have a pH
≥7.0. Replacing TSP with NaTB, which
achieves the same pH buffering requirements,
will not increase the probability of a LOCA.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or single failures are introduced
as a result of the proposed change. All
structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
previously required for mitigation of an event
remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the
Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed
change has no adverse effects on any safetyrelated system or component and does not
challenge the performance or integrity of any
safety related system. The proposed change
has evaluated the replacement buffering
agent and no new accident scenarios or
single failures are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Changing the containment sump buffering
agent requirement from TSP to NaTB and
revising the required volume of NaTB to
decrease (as a result of densification) as HZP
CBC decreases still ensures containment
sump pH ≥7.0. NaTB will maintain pH ≥7.0
in the recirculation water following a LOCA.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluations were made that indicate that the
margin for pH control is not altered by the
proposed changes. A NaTB volume that is
dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated
with respect to neutralization of all borated
water and acid sources. These evaluations
concluded that there would be no impact on
pH control, and hence no reduction in the
margin of safety related to post LOCA
conditions.
Although NaTB is less effective than TSP
at raising the boric acid solubility limit,
implementation of a more conservative HLSO
time and higher recirculation flow
requirements for the hot and cold leg
recirculation flows ensures that the margin of
safety to preclude boron precipitation, and
ultimately assurance of core cooling ability,
is not compromised.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices
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.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 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
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 6D59, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and
petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, the licensee
may file a request for a hearing with
respect to issuance of the amendment to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 O1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
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
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51647
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must
also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner 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.
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 to relief. A
petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission or the presiding officer of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition, request and/or the
contentions should be granted based on
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(I)–(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition
for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express
mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
51648
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 30, 2006 / Notices
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 James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston
& Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20006–3817, attorney
for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated August 21, 2006,
which is available for public inspection
at the Commission’s PDR, located at
One White Flint North, File Public Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System’s (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030–30904]
Notice of Environmental Assessment
Related to the Issuance of a License
Amendment to Byproduct Material
License No. 13–17582–02, for
Unrestricted Release of a Facility for
the Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology, Terre Haute, IN
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of August 2006.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–14389 Filed 8–29–06; 8:45 am]
George M. McCann, Senior Health
Physicist, Decommissioning Branch,
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle,
Illinois 60532–4352; Telephone: (630)
829–9856; or by e-mail at gmm@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
is considering the issuance of a license
amendment to NRC Byproduct Materials
License No. 13–17582–02. This license
is held by Rose-Hulman Institute of
Technology (the Licensee) for a building
(the Facility) on its Terre Haute, Indiana
campus in which NRC-licensed
materials were formerly stored. Issuance
of the amendment would authorize
release of the Facility for unrestricted
use. The Licensee requested this action
in a letter dated February 14, 2006,
(ADAMS Accession No. ML062230210).
The NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment in support
of this proposed action in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR Part
51. Based on the Environmental
Assessment, the NRC has determined
that a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed
action. The amendment to Rose-Hulman
Institute of Technology’s license will be
issued following the publication of this
Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact in the Federal
Register.
I. Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology’s
request to amend its license and release
the Facility for unrestricted use in
accordance with 10 CFR Part 20,
Subpart E. The Licensee received its
initial NRC license on July 19, 1977,
pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and this
license was superceded on February 2,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Aug 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1989, by NRC License No. 13–17582–02.
These licenses authorized the Licensee
to use low millicurie quantities of
byproduct materials in sealed and
unsealed form for training and teaching
students in nuclear and radiation
physics. The Licensee is currently
authorized to possess and use millicurie
quantities of byproduct materials in
sealed sources.
The Licensee’s Facility is a cinder
block building of 100–150 square feet
located about 60 feet northwest of the
north end of Moench Hall (the
Institute’s main classroom building).
The Facility contained a lead storage
vault and was used to store plutonium239/Beryllium neutron sources (which
have been transferred to an authorized
disposal agent), and an americium-241
sealed source.
Based on the Licensee’s historical
knowledge of the site and the conditions
of the Facility, the Licensee determined
that only routine decontamination
activities in accordance with its NRCapproved operating radiation safety
procedures were required. The Licensee
was not required to submit a
decommissioning plan to the NRC
because cleanup activities and
procedures are consistent with those
approved for routine operations. The
Licensee provided survey results which
demonstrated that the Facility was in
compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402,
‘‘Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted
Use.’’ No radiological remediation
activities are required to complete the
proposed action. The NRC completed a
closeout inspection and independent
radiological surveys of the Licensee’s
Facility on July 13, 2006, (NRC
Inspection Report No. 030–30904/06–
001 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML062140020)), which verified the
Licensee’s survey findings.
Need for the Proposed Action
The Licensee has ceased conducting
licensed activities at the Facility. The
NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities
under the Atomic Energy Act to make a
decision on the proposed action for
decommissioning that ensures that
residual radioactivity at the Facility is
reduced to a level that is protective of
the public health and safety and the
environment, and allows the Facility to
be released for unrestricted use.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff reviewed the
information provided and surveys
performed by the Licensee to
demonstrate that the release of the
Facility is consistent with the
radiological criteria for unrestricted use
E:\FR\FM\30AUN1.SGM
30AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51646-51648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-14389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-285]
Omaha Public Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-40 issued to Omaha Public Power Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, located in
Washington County, Nebraska.
The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications to
allow the use of Sodium Tetraborate instead of Trisodium Phosphate.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant
that could affect system, component, or accident functions as a
result of replacing trisodium phosphate (TSP) with sodium
tetraborate (NaTB). Similarly, there are no changes to the design or
operation of the plant affecting system, component or accident
functions as a result of revising the volume of buffering agent
required during Operating Modes 1 and 2 with an amount dependent
upon hot zero power (HZP) critical boron concentration (CBC) to make
it consistent with the use of NaTB.
All systems and components function as designed and the
performance requirements have been evaluated and found to be
acceptable. NaTB will maintain pH [gteqt]7.0 in the recirculation
water following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This function is
maintained with the proposed change. Allowing the required volume of
NaTB to decrease over the operating cycle (as a result of
densification) as HZP CBC decreases still ensures that the pH of the
containment sump is [gteqt]7.0.
Further, replacing TSP with NaTB will not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Other than the Long Term Core Cooling evaluation that establishes
the Hot Leg Switchover (HLSO) time, no other safety analysis
methodology (LOCA or non-LOCA) specifically models the containment
sump buffering agent. As a result, the consequences of any accident
(other than determination of the HLSO time) are unaffected by the
proposed change to the containment sump buffering agent. The
analysis to determine the HLSO time specifically addressed the use
of NaTB to assure it would preclude boron precipitation in the core
and, therefore, preclude any increase in the consequences of a LOCA.
Analysis demonstrates that a NaTB buffering agent ensures the
post LOCA containment sump mixture will have a pH [gteqt]7.0.
Replacing TSP with NaTB, which achieves the same pH buffering
requirements, will not increase the probability of a LOCA.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) previously required for
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function with this change to the Technical Specifications
(TS). The proposed change has no adverse effects on any safety-
related system or component and does not challenge the performance
or integrity of any safety related system. The proposed change has
evaluated the replacement buffering agent and no new accident
scenarios or single failures are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Changing the containment sump buffering agent requirement from
TSP to NaTB and revising the required volume of NaTB to decrease (as
a result of densification) as HZP CBC decreases still ensures
containment sump pH [gteqt]7.0. NaTB will maintain pH [gteqt]7.0 in
the recirculation water following a LOCA. Therefore, this change
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Evaluations were made that indicate that the margin for pH control
is not altered by the proposed changes. A NaTB volume that is
dependent on HZP CBC has been evaluated with respect to
neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These
evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control,
and hence no reduction in the margin of safety related to post LOCA
conditions.
Although NaTB is less effective than TSP at raising the boric
acid solubility limit, implementation of a more conservative HLSO
time and higher recirculation flow requirements for the hot and cold
leg recirculation flows ensures that the margin of safety to
preclude boron precipitation, and ultimately assurance of core
cooling ability, is not compromised.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 51647]]
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.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner 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.
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 to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(I)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail
[[Page 51648]]
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 James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20006-3817, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated August 21, 2006, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of August 2006.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-14389 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
