Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 2546-2557 [E8-421]
Download as PDF
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
2546
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
of the Committee. Notice of this meeting
is required by Section 10(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act and is
intended to notify the public of its
opportunity to attend. Due to
scheduling difficulties, this notice is
appearing in the Federal Register less
than 15 days prior to the meeting date.
DATES: January 30–31, 2008.
Time: January 30 from 8:30 a.m.–5
p.m.; January 31 from 8:30 a.m.–2 p.m.
ADDRESSES: 1775 I St., NW., Suite 730,
Washington, DC 20006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Langley, Staff Assistant, the
National Institute for Literacy; 1775 I
St., NW., Suite 730; phone: (202) 233–
2043; fax: (202) 233–2050; e-mail:
slangley@nifl.gov.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
National Institute for Literacy Advisory
Board is authorized by section 242 of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,
Public Law 105–220 (20 U.S.C. 9252).
The Board consists of 10 individuals
appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The
Board advises and makes
recommendations to the Interagency
Group that administers the Institute.
The Interagency Group is composed of
the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and
Health and Human Services. The
Interagency Group considers the Board’s
recommendations in planning the goals
of the Institute and in implementing any
programs to achieve those goals.
Specifically, the Board performs the
following functions: (a) Makes
recommendations concerning the
appointment of the Director and the
staff of the Institute; (b) provides
independent advice on operation of the
Institute; and (c) receives reports from
the Interagency Group and the
Institute’s Director.
The purpose of this meeting is to
discuss the Institute’s future and current
program priorities; status of on-going
Institute work; other relevant literacy
activities and issues; and other Board
business as necessary.
Individuals who will need
accommodations for a disability to
attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting
services, assistance listening devices, or
materials in alternative format) should
notify Steve Langley at 202–233–2043
no later than January 19, 2008. We will
attempt to meet requests for
accommodations after this date but
cannot guarantee their availability. The
meeting site is accessible to individuals
with disabilities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Request for Public Written Comment.
The public may send written comments
to the Advisory Board no later than 5
p.m. on January 19, 2008, to Steve
Langley at the National Institute for
Literacy, 1775 I St., NW., Suite 730,
Washington, DC 20006, e-mail:
slangley@nifl.gov.
Records are kept of all Committee
proceedings and are available for public
inspection at the National Institute for
Literacy, 1775 I St., NW., Suite 730,
Washington, DC 20006, from the hours
of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Standard
Time Monday through Friday.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You may view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
federegister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1–888–
293–6498; or in the Washington, DC,
area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: January 9, 2008.
Sandra Baxter,
Director, The National Institute for Literacy.
[FR Doc. E8–530 Filed 1–14–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6055–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
Sunshine Act Meeting
9:30 a.m. Wednesday,
January 23, 2008.
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The one item is open to the
public.
MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:
7968—Railroad Accident Briefs and
Safety Recommendation Letter—(1)
Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority Train Strikes
Wayside Worker Near the Dupont
Circle Station, Washington, DC., May
14, 2006 (DCA–06–FR–005), and (2)
WMATA Train Strikes Wayside
Workers Near the Eisenhower Avenue
Station, Alexandria, Virginia,
November 30, 2006.
TIME AND DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Telephone: (202)
314–6100.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact Chris
Bisett at (202) 314–6305 by Friday,
January 18, 2008.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vicky D’Onofrio, (202) 314–6410.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
Dated: January 11, 2008.
Vicky D’Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 08–120 Filed 1–11–08; 1:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–M
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 December
20, 2007 to January 2, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on
December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74354).
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
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
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
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
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, person(s) 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
via electronic submission through the
NRC E-Filing system 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 person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area 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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2547
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 hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated in August
28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing
process requires participants to submit
and serve documents over the Internet
or in some cases to mail copies on
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
2548
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
electronic storage media. Participants
may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek a waiver in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least five (5)
days prior to the filing deadline, the
petitioner/requestor must contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by
calling (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and/or (2) creation of an
electronic docket for the proceeding
(even in instances in which the
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or
representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each
petitioner/ requestor will need to
download the Workplace Forms
ViewerTM to access the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), a
component of the E-Filing system. The
Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital
ID certificate is available on NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has
obtained a digital ID certificate, had a
docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to
intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in
accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the filer submits its
documents through EIE. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to
the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing
system time-stamps the document and
sends the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system. A person filing
electronically may seek assistance
through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located
on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC
technical help line, which is available
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The help line number is (800) 397–4209
or locally, (301) 415–4737.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file a
motion, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to
submit documents in paper format.
Such filings must be submitted by: (1)
First class mail addressed to the Office
of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission, the presiding officer, or
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
that the petition and/or request should
be granted and/or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). To be timely,
filings must be submitted no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due
date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.
Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this
amendment 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 No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2,
Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
November 29, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) section
3.6.8, ‘‘Isolation Valve Seal Water
(IVSW) System.’’ The proposed change
revises Surveillance Requirements (SR)
3.6.8.2 and 3.6.8.6 related to IVSW tank
volume and header flow rates.
Specifically, the proposed change
would clarify the wording of SR 3.6.8.2,
and revise SR 3.6.8.6 to provide a total
flow rate limit from all four headers in
place of the individual header limits.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve
a Significant Increase in the Probability or
Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change is related to the
Isolation Valve Seal Water System. This is a
postaccident dose mitigating system and has
no impact on the probability of an accident
occurring. The proposed change to SR 3.6.8.2
is a clarification that does not impact the
system design or operation. The proposed
change to SR 3.6.8.6 revises the methodology
used to establish the system flow limits, but
maintains the same total flow limitation and
consistency with the system design.
Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment
would not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create
the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of
Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the
design of the system and does not increase
the potential for a failure that would result
in an accident of a different kind.
Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment
would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve
a Significant Reduction in the Margin of
Safety.
The proposed change does not revise the
total leakage limit or the design requirements
for the Isolation Valve Seal Water System.
There is no impact on the capability of the
containment as a fission product barrier.
Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment
would not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 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: 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: Thomas H. Boyce.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
(DNC), Docket No. 50–336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March
28, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.1.e to
allow performance of testing for nozzle
blockage to be based on the occurrence
of activities that could potentially result
in nozzle blockage rather than a fixed
periodic basis. Currently, the testing for
nozzle blockage is performed every 10
years. DNC proposes to change this
frequency to ‘‘following maintenance
that could cause nozzle blockage.’’
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:
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
The spray nozzles and the associated
containment spray system are designed to
perform accident mitigation functions only.
The containment spray system and
associated components are not considered as
initiators of any analyzed accidents. The
proposed change does not modify any plant
equipment. The proposed change modifies
the frequency for performance of a
surveillance test which does not impact any
failure modes that could lead to an accident.
The proposed frequency change does not
effect the ability of the spray nozzles or spray
system to perform its accident mitigation
function as assumed and therefore there is no
effect on the consequence of any accident.
Verification of no blockage continues to be
required, but now as a function of activities
that could result in blockage rather than an
arbitrary surveillance frequency. Based on
this discussion, the proposed amendment
does not increase the probability or
consequence of an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2:
Does the proposed amendment create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The containment spray system is not being
physically modified and there is no impact
on the capability of the system to perform
accident mitigation functions. No system
setpoints are being modified and no changes
are being made to the method in which
borated water is delivered to the spray
nozzles. The testing requirements imposed
by this proposed change to check for nozzle
blockage following activities that could cause
nozzle blockage do not introduce new failure
modes for the system. The proposed
amendment does not introduce accident
initiators or malfunctions that would cause a
new or different kind of accident. Therefore,
the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3:
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change or
introduce any new setpoints at which
mitigating functions are initiated. No changes
to the design parameters of the containment
spray system are being proposed. No changes
in system operation are being proposed by
this change that would impact an established
safety margin. The proposed change modifies
the frequency for verification of nozzle
operability in such a way that continued high
confidence exists that the containment spray
system will continue to function as designed.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2549
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K.
Chernoff.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et
al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 3, New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 13,
2007, as supplemented July 13,
September 12, November 19, December
13, and December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed stretch power uprate
(SPU) license amendment request
would increase the unit’s authorized
core power level from 3,411 megawatts
thermal (MWt) to 3,650 MWt, and make
changes to Technical Specifications
(TSs) and licensing bases as necessary to
support operation at the stretch power
level. The changes to TSs include the
following: Definitions; TS 2.1.1.1,
‘‘Safety Limits;’’ TS Table 2.2–1,
‘‘Reactor Trip System Instrumentation
Trip Setpoints, Functional Unit 12,
Reactor Coolant Flow—Low;’’ TS Table
2.2–1, ‘‘Reactor Trip System
Instrumentation Trip Setpoints,
Functional Unit 18c, Power Range
Neutron Flux, P–8;’’ TS Table 2.2–1,
‘‘Reactor Trip Instrumentation Trip
Setpoints, Table Notations;’’ TS 3/4.2.3,
‘‘Reactor Coolant System Flow Rate and
Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel
Factor;’’ TS 3/4.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety
Features Actuation System
Instrumentation;’’ TS 3/4.4.4.3,
‘‘Pressurizer;’’ TS 3/4.7.1, ‘‘Turbine
Cycle;’’ TS 3/4.7.7, ‘‘Control Room
Emergency Ventilation System;’’ TS 3/
4.7.14, ‘‘Area Temperature Monitoring;’’
TS 3/4.9.13, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool—
Reactivity;’’ TS 5.6, ‘‘Fuel Storage
Criticality;’’ TS 6.8.4.f, ‘‘Administrative
Controls—Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program;’’ and TS 6.9.1.6,
‘‘Administrative Controls—Core
Operating Limits Report.’’ The changes
to the licensing bases include the
following: Safety Grade Cold Shutdown;
Branch Technical Position CMEB 9.5.1,
sections 5.c.3 and 5.c.5—‘‘Fire
shutdown strategy for long-term steam
generator inventory make-up;’’ and the
demineralized water storage tank.
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:
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
2550
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
1. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The accident analyses documented in
Chapter 6 and 15 of the FSAR [Final Safety
Analysis Report] have been reanalyzed at the
SPU [Stretch Power Uprate] conditions. For
some accidents, credit has been taken for a
number of minor modifications that will be
installed in order to maintain analytical and
operating margin. These minor modifications
include the following:
• Installation of a Safety Injection
Actuation Signal permissive for the charging
injection isolation valves.
• Installation of an electronic filter on the
T-hot temperature input into the Reactor
Protection System and modification of the
Over-temperature Delta T and Over-power
Delta T reactor trip set points.
• Elimination of the automatic rod
withdrawal capability for the rod control
system.
• Installation of an automatic initiation of
pressurized filtration mode of the Control
Building ventilation system.
Technical Specifications (TS) changes, as
appropriate, have been proposed to reflect
the implementation of these modifications.
The revised accident analyses have been
performed with current state-of-the-art
methodologies that have been generically
approved by the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory
Commission]. All restrictions and limitations
of these methodologies, including those
identified by the NRC, have been met in the
application of these methodologies to the
SPU accident analyses. The results of the
accident analyses at SPU conditions together
with the proposed modifications demonstrate
that all design basis criteria are met and that
the SPU does not result in a significant
increase in the consequences of any
previously evaluated accidents.
Analyses have been performed for
operational transients that have identified
some changes to control system set points.
These changes assure that the control
systems will respond and limit challenges to
the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) from
routine operational transients, such as
startup and shutdown. These changes assure
that there will be no significant increase in
probability of occurrence of an accident at
SPU conditions.
Comprehensive evaluations of plant
structures, systems and components (SSCs)
have been performed and confirmed that all
systems are capable of performing their
intended design functions at uprated power
conditions. Some Technical Specifications
Surveillance Requirements have been revised
to reflect SPU conditions and to reflect
current generic TS standards. All systems
will continue to be operated in accordance
with design requirements under SPU
conditions; therefore, no new components or
system interactions have been identified that
could lead to an increase in the probability
of any accident previously evaluated in the
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The radiological consequence calculations
were revised to reflect SPU conditions and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
the predicted releases from the revised
accident analyses. All results continue to
meet established regulatory limits and there
is no significant increase in radiological
consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
result in 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.
Detailed evaluations of the configuration,
operation, and accident response of the SSCs
under SPU conditions and the associated
proposed TS changes have been performed to
confirm that all SSCs will perform as
designed. Analyses of transient events have
confirmed that no transient event results in
a new sequence of events that could lead to
a new accident scenario.
The effect of operation under SPU
conditions on plant equipment has been
evaluated. A failure modes and effect
evaluation has been performed for the
proposed new ECCS permissive for the
charging injection valves. This has shown
that the change does not create any new
failure modes that could lead to a different
kind of accident. Other minor plant
modifications, to support implementation of
SPU conditions, will be made to existing
systems and components. These
modifications provide added margin so that
the SSCs will continue to perform their
design function and no new safety-related
equipment or systems will be installed which
could potentially introduce new failure
modes or accident sequences.
Based on this analysis, it is concluded that
no new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed
changes. The proposed TS changes do not
have an adverse effect on any aspect of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
A comprehensive analysis was performed
to support the power SPU program at MPS3
[Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3]. This
analysis identified and defined the major
input parameters to the Nuclear Steam
Supply System (NSSS), reviewed NSSS
design transients, and reviewed the
capabilities of the NSSS fluid systems, NSSS/
BOP (balance-of-plant) interfaces, and NSSS
and BOP components. The nuclear and
thermal hydraulic performance of nuclear
fuel was also reviewed to confirm acceptable
results. Only minor plant modifications, to
support implementation of SPU conditions,
will be made to existing systems and
components. Changes in set points for
actuation of equipment provide added
margin for performing the required safety
functions and do not adversely affect the
outcome of any postulated accident. The
analysis indicated that all NSSS and BOP
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
systems and components will continue to
operate within existing design and safety
limits under SPU conditions.
The margin of safety of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary is maintained under SPU
conditions. The design pressure of the reactor
pressure vessel and reactor coolant system
will not be challenged as the pressure
mitigating systems were confirmed to be
sufficiently sized to adequately control
pressure under SPU conditions.
The radiological consequences were recalculated at SPU conditions for Design
Bases Accidents (DBAs) previously analyzed
in the FSAR. The analysis showed that the
radiological consequences of DBAs continue
to meet established regulatory limits at SPU
conditions.
The analyses supporting the SPU program
have demonstrated that all systems and
components are capable of safely operating at
SPU conditions. All DBA acceptance criteria
will continue to be met. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed changes do not
result in a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
Based on this review, the three standards
of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
DNC determined that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
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: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Waterford, CT 06141–5127.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K.
Chernoff.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket No. 50–339, North Anna Power
Station, Unit 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request:
December 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.15,
pertaining to the containment leak rate
testing program. The TS change would
permit a onetime 5-year exception to the
10-year frequency of the performance
based leakage rate testing program for
Type A tests, as required by Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.163. This one time
exception to the RG 1.163 requirement
would allow the next Type A test to be
performed no later than October 9, 2014.
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:
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed extension to Type A testing
cannot increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated since extension of the
containment Type A testing is no a physical
plant modification that could alter the
probability of accident occurrence nor, is an
activity or modification by itself that could
lead to equipment failure or accident
initiation.
The proposed extension to Type A testing
does not result in a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident as documented
in [NRC technical report designation
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission)] NUREG–
1493. The NUREG notes that very few
potential containment leakage paths are not
identified by Type B and C tests. It concludes
that reducing the Type A testing frequency to
once per twenty years leads to an
imperceptible increase in risk.
North Anna provides a high degree of
assurance through testing and inspection that
the containment will not degrade in a
manner detectable only by Type A testing.
The last three Type A tests identified
containment leakage within acceptance
criteria, indicating a very leak-tight
containment. Inspections required by the
[American Society of Mechanical Engineers]
ASME Code are also performed in order to
identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect leak-tightness.
Separately, Type B and C testing, required by
Technical Specifications, identifies any
containment opening from design
penetrations, such as valves, that would
otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These
factors establish that an extension to the
North Anna Type A test interval will not
represent a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
2. Does the proposed license amendment
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed revision to North Anna
Technical Specifications adds a one-time
extension to the current interval for Type A
testing. The current test interval of ten years,
based on past performance, will be extended
on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the
last Type A test. The proposed extension to
Type A testing does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident since
there are no physical changes being made to
the plant and there are no changes to the
operation of the plant that could introduce a
new failure.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to North Anna
Technical Specifications adds a one-time
extension to the current interval for Type A
testing. The current test interval of ten years,
based on past performance, will be extended
on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the
last Type A test. RG 1.174 provides guidance
for determining the risk impact of plantspecific changes to the licensing basis. RG
1.174 defines very small changes in risk as
resulting in increases of [core damage
frequency] CDF below 1E–6/yr and increases
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
in [large early release fraction] LERF below
1E–7/yr. Since the Type A test does not
impact CDF, the relevant criterion is LERF.
The increase in LERF resulting from a change
in the Type A test interval from a once-perten-years to a once-per-fifteen years is 1.58E–
7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174
states that when the calculated increase in
LERF is in the range of 1E–7/yr to 1E–6/yr,
applications will be considered if it can be
shown that the total LERF is less than 1E–
5/yr.
Since the total LERF is 1.20E–6yr, the
change is considered small and not a
significant reduction in margin. Increasing
the Type A test interval from ten to fifteen
years is, therefore, considered non-risk
significant and will not significantly reduce
the margin of safety.
The NUREG–1493 generic study of the
effects of extending containment leakage
testing found that a 20-year extension in
Type A leakage testing resulted in an
imperceptible increase in risk to the public.
NUREG–1493 found that, generically, the
design containment leakage rate contributes
about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and that
decreasing the Type A testing frequency
would have a minimal affect on this risk
since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage
paths would already be detected by Type B
and C testing. Furthermore, for North Anna,
maintaining the containment subatmospheric
[pressure] during plant operations further
reduces the risk of any containment leakage
path going undetected.
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: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C.
Marinos.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket No. 50–281, Surry Power Station,
Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 4.4,
pertaining to the containment leak rate
testing program. The TS change would
permit a one-time 5-year exception to
the 10-year frequency of the
performance based leakage rate testing
program for Type A tests, as required by
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163. This one
time exception to the RG 1.163
requirement would allow the next Type
A test to be performed no later than
October 26, 2015.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2551
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed extension to Type A testing
cannot increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated since extension of the
containment Type A testing is not a physical
plant modification that could alter the
probability of accident occurrence nor, is an
activity or modification by itself that could
lead to equipment failure or accident
initiation.
The proposed extension to Type A testing
does not result in a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident as documented
in [NRC technical report designation
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission)] NUREG–
1493. The NUREG notes that very few
potential containment leakage paths are not
identified by Type B and C tests. It concludes
that reducing the Type A testing frequency to
once per twenty years leads to an
imperceptible increase in risk.
Surry provides a high degree of assurance
through testing and inspection that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
detectable only by Type A testing. The last
two Type A tests identified containment
leakage within acceptance criteria, indicating
a very leak-tight containment. Inspections
required by the [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also
performed in order to identify indications of
containment degradation that could affect
leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and C
testing, required by Technical Specifications,
identifies any containment opening from
design penetrations, such as valves, that
would otherwise be detected by a Type A
test. These factors establish that an extension
to the Surry Type A test interval will not
represent a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
2. Does the proposed license amendment
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed revision to Surry Technical
Specifications adds a one-time extension to
the current interval for Type A testing. The
current test interval of ten years, based on
past performance, will be extended on a onetime basis to fifteen years from the last Type
A test. The proposed extension to Type A
testing does not create the possibility of a
new or different type of accident since there
are no physical changes being made to the
plant and there are no changes to the
operation of the plant that could introduce a
new failure.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to Surry Technical
Specifications adds a one-time extension to
the current interval for Type A testing. The
current test interval of ten years, based on
past performance, will be extended on a onetime basis to fifteen years from the last Type
A test. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 provides
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2552
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
guidance for determining the risk impact of
plant-specific changes to the licensing basis.
RG 1.174 defines small changes in risk as
resulting in increases of [core damage
frequency] CDF below 1E–5/yr and increases
in [large early release fraction] LERF below
1E–6/yr. Since the Type A test does not
impact CDF, the relevant criterion is LERF.
The increase in LERF resulting from a change
in the Type A test interval from a once-perten-years to a once-per-fifteen-years is 1.3E–
7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174
states that when the calculated increase in
LERF is in the range of 1E–7/yr to 1E–6/yr,
applications will be considered if it can be
shown that the total LERF is less than 1E–
6/yr. Since the total LERF is 9.8E–7/yr, the
change is considered small and not a
significant reduction in margin. Increasing
the Type A test interval from ten to fifteen
years is, therefore, considered non-risk
significant and will not significantly reduce
the margin of safety.
The NUREG–1493 generic study of the
effects of extending containment leakage
testing found that a 20-year extension in
Type A leakage testing resulted in an
imperceptible increase in risk to the public.
NUREG–1493 found that, generically, the
design containment leakage rate contributes
about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and that
decreasing the Type A testing frequency
would have a minimal effect on this risk
since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage
paths would already be detected by Type B
and C testing. Furthermore, for Surry,
maintaining the containment subatmospheric
[pressure] during plant operations further
reduces the risk of any containment leakage
path going undetected.
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: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: John Stang,
Acting.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North
Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3,
pertaining to the diesel fuel oil and
starting air, to allow a one-time 14-day
extension to the completion time (CT)
allowed for an emergency diesel
generator (EDG) diesel fuel storage tank
taken out of service. The one-time
extension is intended for each of the
fuel oil storage tanks to permit removal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
of the current coating and recoat the
storage tanks in preparation to use ultralow sulfur diesel fuel oil as mandated
by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
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 license amendment
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed extension of the Completion
Time for the EDG fuel oil storage tanks does
not increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated since extension of the
Completion Time does not physically modify
the plant in a manner that could alter the
probability of accident occurrence, nor is it
an activity or modification by itself that
could lead to equipment failure or accident
initiation. [The] TS currently permit this
planned inspection and repair activity and
provide the appropriate actions to ensure an
adequate supply of fuel oil is available
during the planned maintenance activity.
Therefore, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not affected by the
extended Completion Time.
The proposed extension of the Completion
Time for the planned maintenance activities
on the fuel oil storage tanks does not result
in a significant increase in the consequences
of an accident since adequate fuel oil remains
available to permit EDG operation during a
design basis accident [DBA].
2. Does the proposed license amendment
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed revision to North Anna TS
permits one-time extension of the current 7day Completion Time to 14-day for each fuel
oil storage tank for planned maintenance
activities. This proposed extension does not
create the possibility of a new or different
type of accident since there are no physical
changes being made to the plant and there
are no changes to the operation of the plant
that could introduce a new failure. The
existing TS actions ensure an adequate
supply of fuel oil is available prior to the
maintenance to support EDG operation
during a DBA.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to North Anna
Technical Specifications, which only permit
a one-time extension to the current 7-day
Completion Time for an inoperable fuel oil
storage tank to 14 days, will not significantly
reduce the margin of safety. RG 1.174
provides guidance for determining the risk
impact of plant-specific changes to the
licensing basis. The average annual increases
in core damage frequency (CDF) and large
early release frequency (LERF) resulting from
the extended Completion Time for planned
maintenance activities on the fuel oil storage
tanks are 5.6E–8/yr and 8.4E–10/yr,
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respectively. RG 1.174 states that when the
calculated increases in CDF and LERF are
below 1E–5/yr and 1E–6/yr, respectively,
applications will be considered when the
total CDF and LERF are less than 1E–4/yr and
1E–5/yr, respectively. Since the total CDF
and LERF for the proposed extended
Completion Time meet these criteria for a
permanent plant change, the change is
considered small and not a significant
reduction in margin. The one-time extension
for planned maintenance activities on each
fuel oil storage tank is, therefore, considered
non-risk significant and will not significantly
reduce the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: John Stang,
Acting.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket
No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), Dauphin
County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
June 29, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the TMI–1 technical
specifications, to reflect a change to the
Reactor Building spray system buffering
agent from sodium hydroxide to
trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented on
a schedule consistent with the licensee’s
commitments regarding Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic
Letter 2004–02, or within 30 days of
issuance, whichever is less.
Amendment No.: 263.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
50. Amendment revised the license and
the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49569). The supplements dated October
19, 2007, and November 29, 2007,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed and did not change the NRC
staff’s original proposed no significant
hazards determination. The
Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated December 21, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No.
50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment:
June 12, 2007, as supplemented by letter
dated September 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.7.4 to add an Action
Statement for two inoperable control
center air conditioning (AC) subsystems.
The new Action Statement allows a
finite time to restore one control center
AC subsystem to operable status and
requires verification every 4 hours that
control room temperature is maintained
< 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 177.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
43: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 11, 2007 (72 FR
51854).
The supplemental letter contained
clarifying information and did not
change the initial no significant hazards
consideration determination, and did
not expand the scope of the original
Federal Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 18,
2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos.
50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments:
January 4, 2007, supplemented
November 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications by removing the gaseous
radioactivity monitor.
Date of Issuance: December 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 359, 361, 360.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55:
Amendments revised the licenses and
the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 27, 2007 (72 FR
8802) The supplement dated November
19, 2007, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2553
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
amendments is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated December 19, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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: May 29,
2007, as supplemented by letters dated
August 30 and September 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment reflects the transfer of
Facility Operating License No. NPF–47,
to the extent formerly held by Entergy
Gulf States, Inc. (EGS) and Entergy
Operations, Inc. (EOI), for the River
Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), which was
approved by an Order dated October 26,
2007. The transfer is associated with the
restructuring of EGS from a Texas
corporation to a Louisiana limited
liability company, Entergy Gulf States,
Louisiana, LLC (EGS–LA). EOI will
continue to operate RBS, and the
proposed restructuring will not affect
the technical or financial qualifications
of EOI.
Date of issuance: December 31, 2007.
Effective date: At the time the transfer
is completed.
Amendment No.: 158.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37266).
The supplements dated August 30 and
September 19, 2007, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed in
the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 31,
2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al.,
Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit
No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus
County, Florida
Date of application for amendment:
April 25, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated June 28, August 30,
September 13, October 18, and
November 1, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment increases the licensed core
power level 1.6 percent to 2609
megawatts thermal. This increase will
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2554
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
be achieved by the use of high-accuracy
heat balanced instrumentation,
including a Caldon Leading Edge
Flowmeter CheckPlusTM ultrasonic flow
measurement system, which allows for
more accurate measurement of
feedwater flow.
Date of issuance: December 27, 2007.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 228.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
72: Amendment revises the Technical
Specifications and Facility Operating
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 11, 2007 (72 FR
51862). The supplements dated August
30, September 13, October 18, and
November 1, 2007, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The
Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated December 27, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket
No. 50–331, Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of application for amendment:
July 20, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment modifies the technical
specification (TS) by adding an action
statement for two inoperable control
boiling chiller (CBC) subsystems. The
action statement allows 72 hours to
restore one CBC subsystem to operable
status and requires verification once
every 4 hours that control building
temperatures are maintained to be less
than 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The
amendment is consistent with TS Task
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF–
477, Revision 3.
Date of issuance: December 26, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 267.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
49: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 25, 2007 (72 FR
54472), as corrected on October 10, 2007
(72 FR 57606). The correction involved
the misidentification of the licensee, not
a technical issue.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:24 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Safety Evaluation dated December 26,
2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego
County, New York
Date of application for amendment:
December 14, 2006, as supplemented by
letters dated July 17, August 1, and
September 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the accident source
term in the design basis radiological
consequence analyses in accordance
with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.67. The
revised accident source term revision
replaces the methodology that is based
on Technical Information Document
(TID)–14844, ‘‘Calculation of Distance
Factors for Power and Test Reactor
Sites,’’ with the alternate source term
methodology described in Regulatory
Guide 1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological
Source Terms for Evaluating Design
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors,’’ with the exception that TID–
14844 will continue to be used as the
radiation dose basis for equipment
qualification and vital area access.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance to be implemented within 120
days.
Amendment No.: 194.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–63: Amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR
11390). The supplements dated July 17,
2007, August 1, 2007, and September
19, 2007, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission staff’s initial
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 19,
2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50–
387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1
and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
June 7, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments delete section 2.G of
Facility Operating License NFP–14 for
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SSES 1, which requires reporting of
violations of the requirements in
sections 2.C and 2.F of the facility
operating license. The amendments also
delete section 2.E of Facility Operating
License NPF–22 for SSES 2, which
requires reporting of violations of the
requirements in section 2.C of the
facility operating license. This change is
in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF–372, Revision 4.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 244 and 222.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
14 and NPF–22: The amendments
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 25, 2007 (72 FR
54478).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 18,
2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50–
387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1
and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
June 8, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise Limiting Condition
for Operation 3.10.1, and the associated
Bases, to expand its scope to include
provisions for temperature excursions
greater than 200 degrees Fahrenheit (°F),
but less than 212 °F as a consequence
of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing,
and as a consequence of scram time
testing initiated in conjunction with an
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while
considering operational conditions to be
in Mode 4 for SSES 1 and 2. This
change is in accordance with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-approved
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF–484, ‘‘Use
of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing
Activities.’’
Date of issuance: December 20, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and to be implemented within
30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 245 and 223.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
14 and NPF–22: The amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 25, 2007 (72 FR
54478).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Safety Evaluation dated December 20,
2007.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and Final
Determination of No Significant
Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent
Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment complies with the
standards and requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s rules
and regulations. The Commission has
made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commission’s rules
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I,
which are set forth in the license
amendment.
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
Register notice providing opportunity
for public comment or has used local
media to provide notice to the public in
the area surrounding a licensee’s facility
of the licensee’s application and of the
Commission’s proposed determination
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has provided a
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
available to the public means of
communication for the public to
respond quickly, and in the case of
telephone comments, the comments
have been recorded or transcribed as
appropriate and the licensee has been
informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act
in a timely way would have resulted, for
example, in derating or shutdown of a
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
either resumption of operation or of
increase in power output up to the
plant’s licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
case, the license amendment has been
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
issued without opportunity for
comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an
opportunity for public comment. If
comments have been requested, it is so
stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission
may issue and make an amendment
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before it of a request for
a hearing from any person, in advance
of the holding and completion of any
required hearing, where it has
determined that no significant hazards
consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2555
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, person(s) 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 via electronic
submission through the NRC E-Filing
system 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 person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and
electronically on the Internet at the NRC
Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there 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.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2556
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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
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/
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
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule,
which the NRC promulgated in August
28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing
process requires participants to submit
and serve documents over the internet
or in some cases to mail copies on
electronic storage media. Participants
may not submit paper copies of their
filings unless they seek a waiver in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least five (5)
days prior to the filing deadline, the
petitioner/requestor must contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by
calling (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and/or (2) creation of an
electronic docket for the proceeding
(even in instances in which the
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or
representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each
petitioner/requestor will need to
download the Workplace Forms
ViewerTM to access the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), a
component of the E-Filing system. The
Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital
ID certificate is available on NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has
obtained a digital ID certificate, had a
docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to
intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in
accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the filer submits its
documents through EIE. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to
the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing
system time-stamps the document and
sends the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically may
seek assistance through the ‘‘Contact
Us’’ link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html or by calling the NRC
technical help line, which is available
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
The help line number is (800) 397–4209
or locally, (301) 415–4737.
Participants who believe that they
have good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file a
motion, in accordance with 10 CFR
2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to
submit documents in paper format.
Such filings must be submitted by: (1)
First class mail addressed to the Office
of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or
(2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions
and contentions will not be entertained
absent a determination by the
Commission, the presiding officer, or
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
that the petition and/or request should
be granted and/or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). To be timely,
filings must be submitted no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due
date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer.
Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
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 17, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment added a license condition
to the Facility Operating License, for a
one-time extension of Reactor Protection
System Instrumentation Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.1.8 concerning
the calibration of Local Power Range
Monitors. This license condition also
includes actions to ensure continued
compliance with the associated safety
analysis and resolution of this condition
as soon as possible. This extension will
allow operation until Refuel Outage -14
and establishment of the necessary
conditions following the outage to allow
the calibration to be performed.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the required due date for the SR
3.3.1.1.8.
Amendment No.: 157.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License. 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 December 21, 2007.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A.
Burke, Associate General Council—
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:48 Jan 14, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340
Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi
39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day
of January 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–421 Filed 1–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meetings Notice
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
DATE: Weeks of January 14, 21, 28;
February 4, 11, 18, 2008.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
Week of January 14, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
10 a.m.
Discussion of Adjudicatory Issues
(Closed—Ex. 10).
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Affirmation Session (Public Meeting).
a. PG&E Co. (Diablo Canyon ISFSI),
Docket No. 72–26–ISFSI, San Luis
Obispo Mothers for Peace’s
Contention and Request for Hearing
Re Diablo Canyon Environmental
Assessment Supplement
(Tentative).
b. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
License Renewal Pilgrim Watch’s
Appeal of Interlocutory Board
Order Summarily Disposing of
Contention 3 (SAMAs) (LBP–07–
13).
2557
Week of February 18, 2008—Tentative
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Periodic Meeting on New Reactor
Issues, Part 1 (Public Meeting).
(Contact: Donna Williams, 301–
415–1322.)
1:30 p.m.
Periodic Meeting on New Reactor
Issues, Part 2 (Public Meeting).
(Contact: Donna Williams, 301–
415–1322).
This meeting, parts 1 and 2, will be
webcast live at the Web address—https://
www.nrc.gov.
*The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings,
call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.
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/about-nrc/policymaking/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,
Rohn Brown, at 301–492–2279, TDD:
301–415–2100, or by e-mail at
REB3@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, or 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.
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of January 21, 2008.
Dated: January 10, 2008.
R. Michelle Schroll,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 08–114 Filed 1–11–08; 10:43 am]
Week of January 28, 2008—Tentative
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Week of January 21, 2008—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of January 28, 2008.
Week of February 4, 2008—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of February 4, 2008.
Week of February 11, 2008—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the Week of February 11, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Office of Federal Procurement Policy;
Acquisition of Green Products and
Services
AGENCY:
Office of Management and
Budget.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2546-2557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-421]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 December 20, 2007 to January 2, 2008. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 31, 2007 (72 FR 74354).
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
[[Page 2547]]
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, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing 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,
person(s) 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
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system 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 person(s) should consult a current copy of
10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 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.
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 hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007, (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the Internet
or in some cases to mail copies on
[[Page 2548]]
electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of
their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-
viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically may seek
assistance through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC
technical help line, which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The help line number is
(800) 397-4209 or locally, (301) 415-4737.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville, Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a
document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all
other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses,
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment 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 No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 29, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) section 3.6.8, ``Isolation Valve
Seal Water (IVSW) System.'' The proposed change revises Surveillance
Requirements (SR) 3.6.8.2 and 3.6.8.6 related to IVSW tank volume and
header flow rates. Specifically, the proposed change would clarify the
wording of SR 3.6.8.2, and revise SR 3.6.8.6 to provide a total flow
rate limit from all four headers in place of the individual header
limits.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change is related to the Isolation Valve Seal Water
System. This is a postaccident dose mitigating system and has no
impact on the probability of an accident occurring. The proposed
change to SR 3.6.8.2 is a clarification that does not impact the
system design or operation. The proposed change to SR 3.6.8.6
revises the methodology used to establish the system flow limits,
but maintains the same total flow limitation and consistency with
the system design. Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 2549]]
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the design of the system and
does not increase the potential for a failure that would result in
an accident of a different kind.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction
in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change does not revise the total leakage limit or
the design requirements for the Isolation Valve Seal Water System.
There is no impact on the capability of the containment as a fission
product barrier.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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: 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: Thomas H. Boyce.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.1.e to
allow performance of testing for nozzle blockage to be based on the
occurrence of activities that could potentially result in nozzle
blockage rather than a fixed periodic basis. Currently, the testing for
nozzle blockage is performed every 10 years. DNC proposes to change
this frequency to ``following maintenance that could cause nozzle
blockage.''
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:
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The spray nozzles and the associated containment spray system
are designed to perform accident mitigation functions only. The
containment spray system and associated components are not
considered as initiators of any analyzed accidents. The proposed
change does not modify any plant equipment. The proposed change
modifies the frequency for performance of a surveillance test which
does not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident.
The proposed frequency change does not effect the ability of the
spray nozzles or spray system to perform its accident mitigation
function as assumed and therefore there is no effect on the
consequence of any accident. Verification of no blockage continues
to be required, but now as a function of activities that could
result in blockage rather than an arbitrary surveillance frequency.
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2:
Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The containment spray system is not being physically modified
and there is no impact on the capability of the system to perform
accident mitigation functions. No system setpoints are being
modified and no changes are being made to the method in which
borated water is delivered to the spray nozzles. The testing
requirements imposed by this proposed change to check for nozzle
blockage following activities that could cause nozzle blockage do
not introduce new failure modes for the system. The proposed
amendment does not introduce accident initiators or malfunctions
that would cause a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3:
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change or introduce any new
setpoints at which mitigating functions are initiated. No changes to
the design parameters of the containment spray system are being
proposed. No changes in system operation are being proposed by this
change that would impact an established safety margin. The proposed
change modifies the frequency for verification of nozzle operability
in such a way that continued high confidence exists that the
containment spray system will continue to function as designed.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT
06385.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 13, 2007, as supplemented July 13,
September 12, November 19, December 13, and December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed stretch power uprate
(SPU) license amendment request would increase the unit's authorized
core power level from 3,411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,650 MWt, and
make changes to Technical Specifications (TSs) and licensing bases as
necessary to support operation at the stretch power level. The changes
to TSs include the following: Definitions; TS 2.1.1.1, ``Safety
Limits;'' TS Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip
Setpoints, Functional Unit 12, Reactor Coolant Flow--Low;'' TS Table
2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, Functional
Unit 18c, Power Range Neutron Flux, P-8;'' TS Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor
Trip Instrumentation Trip Setpoints, Table Notations;'' TS 3/4.2.3,
``Reactor Coolant System Flow Rate and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot
Channel Factor;'' TS 3/4.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System Instrumentation;'' TS 3/4.4.4.3, ``Pressurizer;'' TS 3/4.7.1,
``Turbine Cycle;'' TS 3/4.7.7, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation
System;'' TS 3/4.7.14, ``Area Temperature Monitoring;'' TS 3/4.9.13,
``Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity;'' TS 5.6, ``Fuel Storage Criticality;''
TS 6.8.4.f, ``Administrative Controls--Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program;'' and TS 6.9.1.6, ``Administrative Controls--Core Operating
Limits Report.'' The changes to the licensing bases include the
following: Safety Grade Cold Shutdown; Branch Technical Position CMEB
9.5.1, sections 5.c.3 and 5.c.5--``Fire shutdown strategy for long-term
steam generator inventory make-up;'' and the demineralized water
storage tank.
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:
[[Page 2550]]
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The accident analyses documented in Chapter 6 and 15 of the FSAR
[Final Safety Analysis Report] have been reanalyzed at the SPU
[Stretch Power Uprate] conditions. For some accidents, credit has
been taken for a number of minor modifications that will be
installed in order to maintain analytical and operating margin.
These minor modifications include the following:
Installation of a Safety Injection Actuation Signal
permissive for the charging injection isolation valves.
Installation of an electronic filter on the T-hot
temperature input into the Reactor Protection System and
modification of the Over-temperature Delta T and Over-power Delta T
reactor trip set points.
Elimination of the automatic rod withdrawal capability
for the rod control system.
Installation of an automatic initiation of pressurized
filtration mode of the Control Building ventilation system.
Technical Specifications (TS) changes, as appropriate, have been
proposed to reflect the implementation of these modifications. The
revised accident analyses have been performed with current state-of-
the-art methodologies that have been generically approved by the NRC
[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]. All restrictions and limitations of
these methodologies, including those identified by the NRC, have
been met in the application of these methodologies to the SPU
accident analyses. The results of the accident analyses at SPU
conditions together with the proposed modifications demonstrate that
all design basis criteria are met and that the SPU does not result
in a significant increase in the consequences of any previously
evaluated accidents.
Analyses have been performed for operational transients that
have identified some changes to control system set points. These
changes assure that the control systems will respond and limit
challenges to the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS) from routine operational transients, such as
startup and shutdown. These changes assure that there will be no
significant increase in probability of occurrence of an accident at
SPU conditions.
Comprehensive evaluations of plant structures, systems and
components (SSCs) have been performed and confirmed that all systems
are capable of performing their intended design functions at uprated
power conditions. Some Technical Specifications Surveillance
Requirements have been revised to reflect SPU conditions and to
reflect current generic TS standards. All systems will continue to
be operated in accordance with design requirements under SPU
conditions; therefore, no new components or system interactions have
been identified that could lead to an increase in the probability of
any accident previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR).
The radiological consequence calculations were revised to
reflect SPU conditions and the predicted releases from the revised
accident analyses. All results continue to meet established
regulatory limits and there is no significant increase in
radiological consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 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.
Detailed evaluations of the configuration, operation, and
accident response of the SSCs under SPU conditions and the
associated proposed TS changes have been performed to confirm that
all SSCs will perform as designed. Analyses of transient events have
confirmed that no transient event results in a new sequence of
events that could lead to a new accident scenario.
The effect of operation under SPU conditions on plant equipment
has been evaluated. A failure modes and effect evaluation has been
performed for the proposed new ECCS permissive for the charging
injection valves. This has shown that the change does not create any
new failure modes that could lead to a different kind of accident.
Other minor plant modifications, to support implementation of SPU
conditions, will be made to existing systems and components. These
modifications provide added margin so that the SSCs will continue to
perform their design function and no new safety-related equipment or
systems will be installed which could potentially introduce new
failure modes or accident sequences.
Based on this analysis, it is concluded that no new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed TS
changes do not have an adverse effect on any aspect of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
A comprehensive analysis was performed to support the power SPU
program at MPS3 [Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3]. This analysis
identified and defined the major input parameters to the Nuclear
Steam Supply System (NSSS), reviewed NSSS design transients, and
reviewed the capabilities of the NSSS fluid systems, NSSS/BOP
(balance-of-plant) interfaces, and NSSS and BOP components. The
nuclear and thermal hydraulic performance of nuclear fuel was also
reviewed to confirm acceptable results. Only minor plant
modifications, to support implementation of SPU conditions, will be
made to existing systems and components. Changes in set points for
actuation of equipment provide added margin for performing the
required safety functions and do not adversely affect the outcome of
any postulated accident. The analysis indicated that all NSSS and
BOP systems and components will continue to operate within existing
design and safety limits under SPU conditions.
The margin of safety of the reactor coolant pressure boundary is
maintained under SPU conditions. The design pressure of the reactor
pressure vessel and reactor coolant system will not be challenged as
the pressure mitigating systems were confirmed to be sufficiently
sized to adequately control pressure under SPU conditions.
The radiological consequences were re-calculated at SPU
conditions for Design Bases Accidents (DBAs) previously analyzed in
the FSAR. The analysis showed that the radiological consequences of
DBAs continue to meet established regulatory limits at SPU
conditions.
The analyses supporting the SPU program have demonstrated that
all systems and components are capable of safely operating at SPU
conditions. All DBA acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not result
in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on this review, the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, DNC determined that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Waterford, CT 06141-5127.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna
Power Station, Unit 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.15, pertaining to the containment leak
rate testing program. The TS change would permit a onetime 5-year
exception to the 10-year frequency of the performance based leakage
rate testing program for Type A tests, as required by Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.163. This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement would
allow the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 9,
2014.
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:
[[Page 2551]]
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated since extension of
the containment Type A testing is no a physical plant modification
that could alter the probability of accident occurrence nor, is an
activity or modification by itself that could lead to equipment
failure or accident initiation.
The proposed extension to Type A testing does not result in a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident as
documented in [NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission)] NUREG-1493. The NUREG notes that very few potential
containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests.
It concludes that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per
twenty years leads to an imperceptible increase in risk.
North Anna provides a high degree of assurance through testing
and inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner
detectable only by Type A testing. The last three Type A tests
identified containment leakage within acceptance criteria,
indicating a very leak-tight containment. Inspections required by
the [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also
performed in order to identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and
C testing, required by Technical Specifications, identifies any
containment opening from design penetrations, such as valves, that
would otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These factors
establish that an extension to the North Anna Type A test interval
will not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications
adds a one-time extension to the current interval for Type A
testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past
performance, will be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years
from the last Type A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing
does not create the possibility of a new or different type of
accident since there are no physical changes being made to the plant
and there are no changes to the operation of the plant that could
introduce a new failure.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications
adds a one-time extension to the current interval for Type A
testing. The current test interval of ten years, based on past
performance, will be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years
from the last Type A test. RG 1.174 provides guidance for
determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes to the
licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines very small changes in risk as
resulting in increases of [core damage frequency] CDF below 1E-6/yr
and increases in [large early release fraction] LERF below 1E-7/yr.
Since the Type A test does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is
LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A
test interval from a once-per-ten-years to a once-per-fifteen years
is 1.58E-7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174 states that when
the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1E-7/yr to 1E-6/
yr, applications will be considered if it can be shown that the
total LERF is less than 1E-5/yr.
Since the total LERF is 1.20E-6yr, the change is considered
small and not a significant reduction in margin. Increasing the Type
A test interval from ten to fifteen years is, therefore, considered
non-risk significant and will not significantly reduce the margin of
safety.
The NUREG-1493 generic study of the effects of extending
containment leakage testing found that a 20-year extension in Type A
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the
public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically, the design containment
leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and
that decreasing the Type A testing frequency would have a minimal
affect on this risk since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage paths
would already be detected by Type B and C testing. Furthermore, for
North Anna, maintaining the containment subatmospheric [pressure]
during plant operations further reduces the risk of any containment
leakage path going undetected.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-281, Surry Power
Station, Unit No. 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 4.4, pertaining to the containment leak
rate testing program. The TS change would permit a one-time 5-year
exception to the 10-year frequency of the performance based leakage
rate testing program for Type A tests, as required by Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.163. This one time exception to the RG 1.163 requirement would
allow the next Type A test to be performed no later than October 26,
2015.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated since extension of
the containment Type A testing is not a physical plant modification
that could alter the probability of accident occurrence nor, is an
activity or modification by itself that could lead to equipment
failure or accident initiation.
The proposed extension to Type A testing does not result in a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident as
documented in [NRC technical report designation (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission)] NUREG-1493. The NUREG notes that very few potential
containment leakage paths are not identified by Type B and C tests.
It concludes that reducing the Type A testing frequency to once per
twenty years leads to an imperceptible increase in risk.
Surry provides a high degree of assurance through testing and
inspection that the containment will not degrade in a manner
detectable only by Type A testing. The last two Type A tests
identified containment leakage within acceptance criteria,
indicating a very leak-tight containment. Inspections required by
the [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME Code are also
performed in order to identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect leak-tightness. Separately, Type B and
C testing, required by Technical Specifications, identifies any
containment opening from design penetrations, such as valves, that
would otherwise be detected by a Type A test. These factors
establish that an extension to the Surry Type A test interval will
not represent a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed revision to Surry Technical Specifications adds a
one-time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, will
be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the last Type
A test. The proposed extension to Type A testing does not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident since there are
no physical changes being made to the plant and there are no changes
to the operation of the plant that could introduce a new failure.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to Surry Technical Specifications adds a
one-time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, will
be extended on a one-time basis to fifteen years from the last Type
A test. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174 provides
[[Page 2552]]
guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes
to the licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines small changes in risk as
resulting in increases of [core damage frequency] CDF below 1E-5/yr
and increases in [large early release fraction] LERF below 1E-6/yr.
Since the Type A test does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is
LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A
test interval from a once-per-ten-years to a once-per-fifteen-years
is 1.3E-7/yr, based on internal events. RG 1.174 states that when
the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1E-7/yr to 1E-6/
yr, applications will be considered if it can be shown that the
total LERF is less than 1E-6/yr. Since the total LERF is 9.8E-7/yr,
the change is considered small and not a significant reduction in
margin. Increasing the Type A test interval from ten to fifteen
years is, therefore, considered non-risk significant and will not
significantly reduce the margin of safety.
The NUREG-1493 generic study of the effects of extending
containment leakage testing found that a 20-year extension in Type A
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible increase in risk to the
public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically, the design containment
leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent of the overall risk and
that decreasing the Type A testing frequency would have a minimal
effect on this risk since 95% of the Type A detectable leakage paths
would already be detected by Type B and C testing. Furthermore, for
Surry, maintaining the containment subatmospheric [pressure] during
plant operations further reduces the risk of any containment leakage
path going undetected.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: John Stang, Acting.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, pertaining to the diesel fuel oil
and starting air, to allow a one-time 14-day extension to the
completion time (CT) allowed for an emergency diesel generator (EDG)
diesel fuel storage tank taken out of service. The one-time extension
is intended for each of the fuel oil storage tanks to permit removal of
the current coating and recoat the storage tanks in preparation to use
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel oil as mandated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed extension of the Completion Time for the EDG fuel
oil storage tanks does not increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated since extension of the Completion Time does not
physically modify the plant in a manner that could alter the
probability of accident occurrence, nor is it an activity or
modification by itself that could lead to equipment failure or
accident initiation. [The] TS currently permit this planned
inspection and repair activity and provide the appropriate actions
to ensure an adequate supply of fuel oil is available during the
planned maintenance activity. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not affected by the extended
Completion Time.
The proposed extension of the Completion Time for the planned
maintenance activities on the fuel oil storage tanks does not result
in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident since
adequate fuel oil remains available to permit EDG operation during a
design basis accident [DBA].
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed revision to North Anna TS permits one-time
extension of the current 7-day Completion Time to 14-day for each
fuel oil storage tank for planned maintenance activities. This
proposed extension does not create the possibility of a new or
different type of accident since there are no physical changes being
made to the plant and there are no changes to the operation of the
plant that could introduce a new failure. The existing TS actions
ensure an adequate supply of fuel oil is available prior to the
maintenance to support EDG operation during a DBA.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The proposed revision to North Anna Technical Specifications,
which only permit a one-time extension to the current 7-day
Completion Time for an inoperable fuel oil storage tank to 14 days,
will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. RG 1.174
provides guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific
changes to the licensing basis. The average annual increases in core
damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF)
resulting from the extended Completion Time for planned maintenance
activities on the fuel oil storage tanks are 5.6E-8/yr and 8.4E-10/
yr, respectively. RG 1.174 states that when the calculated increases
in CDF and LERF are below 1E-5/yr and 1E-6/yr, respectively,
applications will be considered when the total CDF and LERF are less
than 1E-4/yr and 1E-5/yr, respectively. Since the total CDF and LERF
for the proposed extended Completion Time meet these criteria for a
permanent plant change, the change is considered small and not a
significant reduction in margin. The one-time extension for planned
maintenance activities on each fuel oil storage tank is, therefore,
considered non-risk significant and will not significantly reduce
the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: John Stang, Acting.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
[[Page 2553]]
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.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: June 29, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the TMI-1
technical specifications, to reflect a change to the Reactor Building
spray system buffering agent from sodium hydroxide to trisodium
phosphate dodecahydrate.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on a schedule consistent with the licensee's commitments regarding
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic Letter 2004-02, or within
30 days of issuance, whichever is less.
Amendment No.: 263.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49569). The supplements dated October 19, 2007, and November 29, 2007,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: June 12, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated September 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.7.4 to add an Action Statement for two inoperable
control center air conditioning (AC) subsystems. The new Action
Statement allows a finite time to restore one control center AC
subsystem to operable status and requires verification every 4 hours
that control room temperature is maintained < 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 177.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51854).
The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments: January 4, 2007, supplemented
November 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by removing the gaseous radioactivity monitor.
Date of Issuance: December 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 359, 361, 360.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (72
FR 8802) The supplement dated November 19, 2007, 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 amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: May 29, 2007, as supplemented by letters
dated August 30 and September 19, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment reflects the transfer
of Facility Operating License No. NPF-47, to the extent formerly held
by Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (EGS) and Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI),
for the River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), which was approved by an
Order dated October 26, 2007. The transfer is associated with the
restructuring of EGS from a Texas corporation to a Louisiana limited
liability company, Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana, LLC (EGS-LA). EOI
will continue to operate RBS, and the proposed restructuring will not
affect the technical or financial qualifications of EOI.
Date of issuance: December 31, 2007.
Effective date: At the time the transfer is completed.
Amendment No.: 158.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (72 FR
37266). The supplements dated August 30 and September 19, 2007,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 31, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: April 25, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated June 28, August 30, September 13, October 18, and
November 1, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment increases the
licensed core power level 1.6 percent to 2609 megawatts thermal. This
increase will
[[Page 2554]]
be achieved by the use of high-accuracy heat balanced instrumentation,
including a Caldon Leading Edge Flowmeter CheckPlusTM
ultrasonic flow measurement system, which allows for more accurate
measurement of feedwater flow.
Date of issuance: December 27, 2007.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 228.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications and Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (72
FR 51862). The supplements dated August 30, September 13, October 18,
and November 1, 2007, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment
is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 27, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of application for amendment: July 20, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
technical specification (TS) by adding an action statement for two
inoperable control boiling chiller (CBC) subsystems. The action
statement allows 72 hours to restore one CBC subsystem to operable
status and requires verification once every 4 hours that control
building temperatures are maintained to be less than 90 degrees
Fahrenheit. The amendment is consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)
Change Traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3.
Date of issuance: December 26, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 267.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54472), as corrected on October 10, 2007 (72 FR 57606). The
correction involved the misidentification of the licensee, not a
technical issue.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 26, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated July 17, August 1, and September 19,
2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the accident
source term in the design basis radiological consequence analyses in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.67. The revised accident source term revision replaces the
methodology that is based on Technical Information Document (TID)-
14844, ``Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor
Sites,'' with the alternate source term methodology described in
Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' with the
exception that TID-14844 will continue to be used as the radiation dose
basis for equipment qualification and vital area access.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
120 days.
Amendment No.: 194.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2007 (72 FR
11390). The supplements dated July 17, 2007, August 1, 2007, and
September 19, 2007, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 7, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments delete section 2.G
of Facility Operating License NFP-14 for SSES 1, which requires
reporting of violations of the requirements in sections 2.C and 2.F of
the facility operating license. The amendments also delete section 2.E
of Facility Operating License NPF-22 for SSES 2, which requires
reporting of violations of the requirements in section 2.C of the
facility operating license. This change is in accordance with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-372, Revision 4.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 244 and 222.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54478).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1 and 2), Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 8, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Limiting
Condition for Operation 3.10.1, and the associated Bases, to expand its
scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), but less than 212 [deg]F as a consequence
of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of
scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or
hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in
Mode 4 for SSES 1 and 2. This change is in accordance with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-484, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time
Testing Activities.''
Date of issuance: December 20, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 245 and 223.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2007 (72
FR 54478).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a
[[Page 2555]]
Safety Evaluation dated Decemb