Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 50356-50368 [E8-19369]
Download as PDF
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50356
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.’’).
As I noted in United Prescription
Services, shortly after the CSA’s
enactment, the Supreme Court
explained that ‘‘[i]n the case of a
physician [the Act] contemplates that he
is authorized by the State to practice
medicine and to dispense drugs in
connection with his professional
practice.’’ United States v. Moore, 423
U.S. 122, 140–41 (1975) (emphasis
added) (quoted at 72 FR 50407). A
controlled-substance prescription issued
by a physician who lacks the license or
other authority required to practice
medicine within a State is therefore
unlawful under the CSA. See 21 CFR
1306.04(a) (‘‘An order purporting to be
a prescription issued not in the usual
course of professional treatment * * *
is not a prescription within the meaning
an intent of’’ the CSA); Cf. 21 CFR
1306.03(a)(1) (‘‘A prescription for a
controlled substance may be issued only
by an individual practitioner who is
* * * [a]uthorized to prescribe
controlled substances by the jurisdiction
in which he is licensed to practice his
profession[.]’’).
In the Stipulation and Final Agency
Order, Respondent admitted that the
prescribings to B.V. and D.V.
constituted ‘‘prescribing * * * other
than in the course of legitimate
professional practice’’ under Colorado
law. See In re Thornton, Stipulation and
Final Agency Order, at 3. Accordingly,
I conclude that the prescriptions
Respondent issued to D.V. and B.V.
were issued outside of the course of
professional practice and thus also
violated Federal law. See 21 CFR
1306.04(a); Moore, 423 U.S. at 140–41;
United Prescription Services, 72 FR at
50407. The prescribings thus
constituted acts which render her
registration ‘‘inconsistent with the
public interest.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4); see
also id. § 823(f)(2) & (4) (directing
consideration of registrant’s ‘‘experience
in dispensing controlled substances’’
and compliance with applicable federal
and state laws).
I nonetheless conclude that it would
be inappropriate to revoke Respondent’s
registration. With respect to the
allegations, the record establishes only
two instances in which Respondent
unlawfully prescribed controlled
substances. Moreover, while ordinarily
a practitioner cannot credibly claim
ignorance of state laws prohibiting the
unlicensed practice of medicine, United
Prescription Services, 72 FR at 50407;
the Colorado Board’s interpretation that
Respondent was not within the
exemption provided in Colo. Stat. § 12–
36–106(b)(3), and that she thus violated
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
the State’s Medical Practice Act, appears
to have been a case of first impression.4
Moreover, the Government has failed
to show the absence of a legitimate
doctor-patient relationship between
Respondent and either person.
Relatedly, there is no evidence that the
prescriptions were written for other
than a legitimate medical purpose. In
short, the evidence does not remotely
suggest that Respondent was using her
prescription writing authority to deal
drugs. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S.
243, 270 (2006).
Furthermore, the Colorado Board has
considered Respondent’s state law
violations and concluded that they do
not warrant the revocation of her
medical license. Under agency
precedent, I am not bound by the State
Board’s recommendation. Nonetheless,
because the only proven violations of
the CSA are based on her having
violated the Colorado Medical Practice
Act’s licensing provision and were
limited to two instances, I conclude that
Respondent’s violations do not warrant
the revocation or suspension of her
registration.
While in some instances, this Agency
has placed restrictions on a
practitioner’s registration, such
restrictions must be related to what the
Government has alleged and proved in
any case. Notably, in this matter the
Government has proposed no alternative
sanction to revocation. Accordingly, the
Order to Show Cause will be dismissed.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that
the Order to Show Cause issued to Janet
L. Thornton, D.O., be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Dated: August 18, 2008.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–19763 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
4 While the Colorado Board found that
Respondent’s attorney’s interpretation of the
Medical Practice Act ‘‘was erroneous,’’ the Board’s
Order did not cite any prior decision holding that
Respondent’s conduct was illegal.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 July 31,
2008 to August 13, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on
August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46926).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
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-
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
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 6D44, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50357
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
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.
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50358
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
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/
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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County,
Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 7,
2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would allow
the use of a methodology to determine
the seismic loads on the recently
upgraded Auxiliary Building crane. The
upgrade was to make the crane singlefailure-proof through replacement of the
crane trolley, and modification of the
existing crane bridge. The proposed
seismic analysis methodology has not
been approved for use at KPS, and is
thus not currently in the KPS Updated
Safety Analysis Report. The proposed
methodology recognizes the inherent
propensity for structures not fixed to
one another (e.g., steel wheels on steel
rails) to roll if sufficient lateral force is
applied. The licensee proposed this
seismic analysis methodology for use
solely on the Auxiliary Building crane
upgrade. The licensee stated that
recognition of wheel rolling between the
crane trolley and bridge and their
respective rails reflects the true nature
of the installed equipment and its
response to horizontal forces generated
by a seismic event.
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. The NRC staff reviewed
the licensee’s analysis and has prepared
its own as follows:
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment pertains solely
to a nonlinear seismic analysis method
supporting the upgrade of the KPS Auxiliary
Building crane from a non-single-failureproof design to a single-failure proof design.
Specifically, the existing crane trolley has
been replaced with a state-of-the-art design
that is single-failure-proof. The crane does
not interface with operating plant equipment,
and will continue to be able to withstand a
design-basis seismic event without an
uncontrolled lowering of the load. Thus, the
probability and consequences of a load drop
are not increased by the upgrade and
proposed change in seismic analysis
methodology. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment pertains to an
analysis method supporting the upgrade of
an existing plant component. This seismic
analysis methodology is proposed for use
solely on the crane upgrade and not for any
other plant structures, systems, or
components. The design-rated load of the
crane main hoist remains the same (i.e., 125
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
tons). This load bounds the design and
supporting analysis. The auxiliary hook
design rated load has been increased from 10
tons to 15 tons. The proposed amendment
does not change the previously evaluated and
currently acceptable heavy load handling
practices in use at KPS. The number and
types of lifts made using this crane in
support of KPS plant operations will not
significantly change from those contemplated
during original plant licensing. Furthermore,
the basic operations of the crane (i.e.,
hoisting and horizontal travel) will remain
the same. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not create a new or
different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed methodology
is to determine the design loads (forces and
moments), accelerations, and displacements
on the crane and building support structure.
These loads will subsequently be used to
perform the structural analysis of these
components to confirm that the design meets
all applicable acceptance criteria using
previously approved industry codes and
standards for such analyses. If the stresses
computed in the structural components as a
result of a seismic event are less than the
limits contained in these codes, the structural
integrity of the crane is maintained, and a
suspended load will remain suspended
during a seismic event. Meeting these code
limits maintains an acceptable margin of
safety for the individual components and the
crane as a whole. Therefore, 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 its
own analysis, proposes 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 Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 120
Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County,
Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 16,
2008.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would align
the Technical Specifications (TS) with
the results of an evaluation performed
according to Westinghouse Nuclear
Safety Advisory Letter NSAL–07–7,
‘‘Short-Term Recriticality During a PWR
[pressurized-water reactor] Large-Break
LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident].’’
NSAL–07–7 advised that the potential
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
exists for recriticality to occur during a
large-break LOCA in the reflood stage
after a LOCA. Westinghouse determined
that Kewaunee is not susceptible to the
subject issue based on the current KPS
practice of maintaining safety injection
(SI) accumulator boron concentration at
or above 2500 ppm. However, to ensure
that the KPS TS are conservative with
respect to the results of NSAL–07–7, the
licensee proposed to raise the minimum
required boron concentration for the SI
accumulators specified by the TS from
the current 1900 parts-per-million
(ppm) to 2400 ppm.
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 reproduced
below:
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Increasing the minimum required boron
concentration in the SI accumulators does
not add, delete, or modify any Kewaunee
systems, structures, or components (SSCs).
The SI accumulators and their contents are
not accident initiators. Rather, they are
designed for accident mitigation. The effects
of an increase in the minimum SI
accumulator boron concentration from 1900
ppm to 2400 ppm are bounded by previous
evaluations and determined to be acceptable.
Thus, the proposed increase in minimum SI
accumulator boron concentration has no
adverse effect on the ability of the plant to
mitigate the effects of design[-]basis
accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Increasing the minimum required boron
concentration in the SI accumulators does
not change the design function of the SI
accumulators or the SSCs designed to deliver
borated water from the SI accumulators to the
core. Increasing the minimum required boron
concentration in the SI accumulators does
not create any credible new failure
mechanisms or malfunctions for plant
equipment or the nuclear fuel. The reactivity
control function of the borated water in the
SI accumulators is not being changed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
An evaluation has been performed that
shows that maintaining boron concentration
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50359
at a minimum of 2400 ppm is sufficient to
assure that acceptable results for design[]basis accident analyses will be maintained
considering the reactivity of the core.
Increasing the minimum boron concentration
in the Sl accumulator from 1900 ppm to a
minimum of 2400 ppm increases the margin
of safety in the Kewaunee safety analyses,
since additional post-accident negative
reactivity will be available to the core. This
additional negative reactivity compensates
for the potential for recriticality occurring
during the short-term reflood period during
the large[-]break loss-of-coolant accident.
Additionally, the proposed new minimum
boron concentration of 2400 ppm is within
the range required by current safety analyses
(i.e., 1900 ppm to 2625 ppm), and well below
the currently acceptable maximum boron
concentration of 2625 ppm.
The proposed amendment does not result
in altering or exceeding a design basis or
safety limit for the plant. All current fuel
design criteria will continue to be satisfied,
and the safety analysis of record, including
evaluations of the radiological consequences
of design[-]basis accidents, will remain
applicable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and determines 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 Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 120
Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2008.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would: (1)
Revise the Technical Specification (TS)
surveillance requirement (SR 3.1.3.2)
frequency in TS 3.1.3, ‘‘Control Rod
OPERABILITY,’’ (2) clarify the
requirement to fully insert all insertable
control rods for the limiting condition
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2,
Required Action E.2, ‘‘Source Range
Monitoring Instrumentation,’’ and (3)
revise Example 1.4–3 in Section 1.4
‘‘Frequency’’ to clarify the applicability
of the 1.25 surveillance test interval
extension. The licensee is proposing to
adopt the approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF–475, Revision 1, ‘‘Control
Rod Notch Testing Frequency.’’
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50360
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
The NRC staff issued a ‘‘Notice of
Availability of Model Application
Concerning Technical Specification
Improvement To Revise Control Rod
Notch Surveillance Frequency, Clarify
SRM Insert Control Rod Action, and
Clarify Frequency Example’’ associated
with TSTF–275, Revision 1, in the
Federal Register on November 13, 2007
(72 FR 63935). The notice included a
model safety evaluation, a model no
significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination and a model
license amendment request, using the
consolidated line item improvement
process. In its application dated June 30,
2008, the licensee affirmed the
applicability of the model NSHC
determination which is presented
below:
Basis for proposed NSHC
determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of
NSHC determination is presented
below:
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change
Does Not Involve a Significant Increase
in the Probability or Consequences of an
Accident Previously Evaluated
The proposed change generically
implements TSTF–475, Revision 1,
‘‘Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency
and SRM Insert Control Rod Action.’’
TSTF–475, Revision 1 modifies
NUREG–1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG–
1434 (BWR/6) STS [(Standard Technical
Specifications)]. The changes: (1) Revise
TS testing frequency for surveillance
requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3,
‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY,’’ (2)
clarify the requirement to fully insert all
insertable control rods for the limiting
condition for operation (LCO) in TS
3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, ‘‘Source
Range Monitoring Instrumentation’’
(NUREG–1434 only), and (3) revise
Example 1.4–3 in Section 1.4
‘‘Frequency’’ to clarify the applicability
of the 1.25 surveillance test interval
extension. The consequences [and
probability] of an accident after
adopting TSTF–475, Revision 1 are no
different than the consequences [and
probability] of an accident prior to
adoption. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change
Does Not Create the Possibility of a New
or Different Kind of Accident From Any
Accident Previously Evaluated
The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant
(no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not
introduce new failure modes or effects
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
and will not, in the absence of other
unrelated failures, lead to an accident
whose consequences exceed the
consequences of accidents previously
analyzed. Thus, this change does not
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change
Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
TSTF–475, Revision 1 will: (1) [revise
the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3,
‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY,’’ (2)
clarify the requirement to fully insert all
insertable control rods for the limiting
condition for operation (LCO) in TS
3.3.1.2, ‘‘Source Range Monitoring
Instrumentation,’’ and (3)] revise
Example 1.4–3 in Section 1.4
‘‘Frequency’’ to clarify the applicability
of the 1.25 surveillance test interval
extension. [The GE Nuclear Energy
Report, ‘‘CRD Notching Surveillance
Testing for Limerick Generating
Station,’’ dated November 2006,
concludes that extending the control rod
notch test interval from weekly to
monthly is not expected to impact the
reliability of the scram system and that
the analysis supports the decision to
change the surveillance frequency.]
Therefore, the proposed changes in
TSTF–475, Revision 1 [* * *] do not
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
analysis adopted by the licensee 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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A.
Burke, Associate General Counsel—
Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340
Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi
39213.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Mohan C.
Thadani.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50–
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,
Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–
455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 26,
2008.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS)
surveillance requirements (SRs) 3.8.1.7,
3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.15, and 3.8.1.20, to clarify
the requirements for the start time test
performed by these SRs. The current
requirement is to have the diesel
generator (DG) within the voltage and
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
frequency limits less than or equal to 10
seconds after the start signal. The
proposed change is to have the DG
above the minimum voltage and
frequency within 10 seconds and
verified to be within the voltage and
frequency limits at steady state
conditions. The change is consistent
with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS
Change Traveler, TSTF–163, ‘‘Minimum
vs. Steady State Voltage and
Frequency,’’ Revision 2.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance
requirements to clarify what voltage and
frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of the DG
start testing.
The revised requirements do not affect the
function of the DGs. The DGs and their
associated emergency loads are accident
mitigating features whose failure modes
could not act as accident initiators or
precursors. The proposed change does not
impact the physical configuration or function
of plant structures, systems, or components
(SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are
operated, maintained, modified, or inspected.
The proposed change does not impact the
initiators or assumptions of analyzed events,
nor does it impact the mitigation of accidents
or transient events.
The proposed change does not affect the
design of the DGs, the operational
characteristics of the DGs, the interfaces
between the DGs and other plant systems, the
function, or the reliability of the DGs. Thus,
the DGs will be capable of performing their
accident mitigation function and there is no
impact to the radiological consequences of
any accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance
requirements to clarify what voltage and
frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of DG
testing.
The function of the DGs is not altered by
this change. The proposed change does not
involve a modification to the physical
configuration of the plant (i.e., no new
equipment will be installed) or change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed change will not introduce a
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
new accident initiator, accident precursor, or
malfunction mechanism.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance
requirements to clarify what voltage and
frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of DG
testing.
The margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design
functions during and following an accident
situation. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
containment system. The proposed change
does not directly affect these barriers, nor
does it involve any adverse impact on the
DGs which serve to support these barriers in
the event of an accident concurrent with a
loss of offsite power. The proposed change
doesn’t affect the DG’s capabilities to provide
emergency power to plant equipment that
mitigate the consequences of the accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(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: Mr. Bradley J.
Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
FPL Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No.
50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: February
8, 2008.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment proposes to change the
Technical Specifications to delete
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.3.1,
which specifies post-maintenance
testing requirements for containment
isolation valves (CIVs).
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 changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed amendment to the technical
specifications, which is consistent with
NUREG–1431, ‘‘Standard Technical
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,’’
removes the surveillance requirement related
to post-maintenance testing of containment
isolation valves (CIVs). Surveillance
requirements are not initiators of accidents;
consequently, the proposed change does not
significantly increase the probability of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change does not alter the requirements
regarding operability of CIVs, and
appropriate testing will continue to confirm
the operability of these valves following
maintenance activities. The CIVs will
continue to be tested in a manner and at a
frequency that demonstrates they remain
capable of performing their intended safety
function. As a result, the proposed
amendment does not significantly affect the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not introduce
any new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or single failures. The change
does not add new equipment to the plant,
does not modify or remove existing
equipment, and does not significantly change
the operation of the plant. The ability of any
operable equipment to perform its specified
safety function is unaffected by this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter the
initial conditions or results of any accident
analyses. The operability requirements,
performance, and design of the CIVs are
unchanged with this proposed change. The
CIVs will continue to meet the design bases
for the containment isolation system as
described in the Seabrook Station [updated
final safety analysis report]. The proposed
amendment will minimize unnecessary
testing of CIVs. Therefore, the proposed
change does 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 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. S. Ross,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O.
Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: H. Chernoff.
GPU Nuclear, Inc., Docket No. 50–320,
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit
2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 11,
2008.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment application proposes to
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50361
delete Technical Specification (TS) 6.5,
‘‘Review and Audit.’’ Specifically, the
proposed change would delete TS 6.5.1,
‘‘Technical Review and Control’’ and TS
6.5.3, ‘‘Audits,’’ which will be
implemented by the current and
proposed changes to the GPU Nuclear
Post-Defueling Monitored Storage
Quality Assurance Plan for Three Mile
Island Unit 2 (PDMS QAP). The
proposed change would also delete TS
6.5.2, ‘‘Independent Safety Review
Function,’’ with no replacement.
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? No.
No physical changes to the TMI–2 Facility
will occur as a result of this proposed
amendment. The proposed changes will not
alter the physical design or operational
procedures associated with any plant
structure, system, or component. As such, the
change is administrative in nature and does
not affect initiators of analyzed events or
assumed mitigation of accidents.
The proposed changes involve the deletion
of several administrative requirements from
the Technical Specifications (TS). The TS
requirements involve Technical Review and
Control and Audits that are now controlled
under the TMI–2 Post Defueling Monitored
Storage Quality Assurance Plan (PDMS
QAP).
In accordance with the guidance provided
in NRC Administrative Letter 95–06,
‘‘Relocation of Technical Specification
Administrative Controls related to Quality
Assurance,’’ the proposed changes are an
acceptable method for removing technical
specification quality assurance requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated? No.
The proposed changes are administrative
in nature. The proposed changes do not alter
the physical design, safety limits, or safety
analysis assumptions associated with the
operation of the plant. Accordingly, the
changes do not introduce any new accident
initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely
affect the capabilities of any plant structure,
system, or component to perform their safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No.
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
50362
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
The proposed changes conform to NRC
regulatory guidance regarding the content of
plant Technical Specifications. The guidance
is presented in Administrative Letter 95–06
and NUREG–1430. The relocation of these
administrative requirements to the PDMS
QAP will not reduce the quality assurance
commitments as accepted by the NRC, nor
reduce administrative controls essential to
the safe operation of the plant. Future
changes to these administrative requirements
will be performed in accordance with NRC
regulation 10 CFR 50.54(a), consistent with
the guidance identified above. Accordingly,
the replacement of TS requirements by
existing proposed TMI–2 PDMS QAP
requirements results in an equivalent level of
regulatory control.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: March
27, 2008.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specification (TS)
requirements related to control building
envelope habitability in TS Section
3.7.3 Control Room Emergency
Ventilation (CREV) System, and add TS
Section 5.5.13, Control Building
Envelope Habitability Program, to the
Administrative Section of the TSs. The
licensee has included conforming
technical changes to the TS Bases. The
proposed revision to the Bases also
includes editorial and administrative
changes to reflect applicable changes to
the corresponding TS Bases, which were
made to improve clarity, conform with
the latest information and references,
correct factual errors, and achieve more
consistency with the standard TS
NUREGs. The proposed revision to the
TSs and associated Bases is similar to
TS Task Force Traveler No. TSTF–448,
Revision 3. However the references to
chemical and smoke hazards are not
included in the proposed revision to TS
Section 3.7.3, TS Section 5.5.13 and TS
Bases 3.7.3, as the CREV System was not
designed to protect the control room
envelope (CRE) occupants from these
hazards and no toxic gas detectors are
provided to initiate a CRE isolation.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) through
incorporation by reference of the NSHC
determination published in the Federal
Register Notice dated January 17, 2007
(73 FR 2022), which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed Technical
Specification change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not
adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility.
The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed change
revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation
system designed to minimize unfiltered air
leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in
the event of accidents previously analyzed.
An important part of the CRE emergency
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The
CRE emergency ventilation system is not an
initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not increased. Performing tests
to verify the operability of the CRE boundary
and implementing a program to assess and
maintain CRE habitability ensure that the
CRE emergency ventilation system is capable
of adequately mitigating radiological
consequences to CRE occupants during
accident conditions, and that the CRE
emergency ventilation system will perform as
assumed in the consequence analyses of
design basis accidents. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not increased. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed Technical
Specification change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not impact
the accident analysis. The proposed change
does not alter the required mitigation
capability of the CRE emergency ventilation
system, or its functioning during accident
conditions as assumed in the licensing basis
analyses of design basis accident radiological
consequences to CRE occupants. No new or
different accidents result from performing the
new surveillance or following the new
program. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will
be installed) or a significant change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed change does not alter any
safety analysis assumptions and is consistent
with current plant operating practice.
Therefore, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed Technical
Specification change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed
change does not affect safety analysis
acceptance criteria. The proposed change
will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without
compensatory measures. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that
respond to safely shut down the plant and to
maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
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: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A,
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: July 10,
2008.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specification (TS)
requirements consistent with the
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–
419, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise PTLR [Pressure
and Temperature Limits Report]
Definition and References in ISTS
[Improved Standard TS] 5.6.6, RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] PTLR.’’ The
proposed change would reference only
the Topical Report (TR) number and
title in TS 5.6.6, ‘‘Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) PRESSURE AND
TEMPERATURE LIMITS REPORT
(PTLR).’’ This would allow the use of
currently approved TRs to determine
the pressure and temperature limits in
the PTLR without having to submit an
amendment to the Operating License.
The change would not alter (1) the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
reviewed and approved analytical
methods used to determine the pressure
and temperature limits or Low
Temperature Overpressure Protection
(LTOP) System setpoints, or (2) the
requirement to use NRC-approved
analytical methods to determine the
limits or setpoints.
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
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 (NSHC), which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the
Topical Report number and title do not alter
the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T [pressure/temperature]
limits or LTOP System setpoints that have
been reviewed and approved by the NRC.
This method of referencing Topical Reports
would allow the use of current [NRCapproved] Topical Reports to support limits
in the PTLR without having to submit an
amendment to the Operating License.
Implementation of revisions to Topical
Reports would still receive regulatory
reviews and where required receive NRC
review and approval. The proposed changes
to add ‘‘LTOP arming’’ into TS 5.6.6a. as a
RCS pressure and temperature limit
established and documented in the PTLR and
deletion of ‘‘and Cold Overpressure
Mitigation System’’ from TS 5.6.6b are
administrative changes for consistency. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor alter the
design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) from performing their
intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
changes do not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the
radiological consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed
changes do not increase the types or amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite, nor significantly increase individual
or cumulative occupational/public radiation
exposures. The proposed changes are
consistent with safety analysis assumptions
and resultant consequences. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the
Topical Report number and title do not alter
the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T limits or LTOP System
setpoints that have been reviewed and
approved by the NRC. This method of
referencing Topical Reports would allow the
use of current [NRC-approved] Topical
Reports to support limits in the PTLR
without having to submit an amendment to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
the Operating License. Implementation of
revisions to Topical Reports would still
receive regulatory reviews and where
required receive NRC review and approval.
The proposed changes to add ‘‘LTOP arming’’
into TS 5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and
temperature limit established and
documented in the PTLR and deletion of
‘‘and Cold Overpressure Mitigation System’’
from TS 5.6.6b are administrative changes for
consistency. The changes do not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new
or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. In
addition, the changes do not impose any new
or different requirements or eliminate any
existing requirements [except that NRCapproved TRs can be used without an
amendment]. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice. Therefore, the proposed
change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in the margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the
Topical Report number and title do not alter
the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T limits or LTOP System
setpoints that have been reviewed and
approved by the NRC. This method of
referencing Topical Reports would allow the
use of current Topical Reports to support
limits in the PTLR without having to submit
an amendment to the Operating License.
Implementation of revisions to Topical
Reports would still receive regulatory
reviews and where required receive NRC
review and approval. The proposed changes
to add ‘‘LTOP arming’’ into TS 5.6.6a. as a
RCS pressure and temperature limit
established and documented in the PTLR and
deletion of ‘‘and Cold Overpressure
Mitigation System’’ from TS 5.6.6b are
administrative changes for consistency. The
proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are not altered
by the proposed changes. Sufficient
equipment remains available to actuate upon
demand for the purpose of mitigating an
analyzed event. Therefore, it is concluded
that this change does 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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Branch Chief (Acting): Jack N.
Donohew.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50363
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.
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.
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
50364
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments:
June 29, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated March 12 and June 11,
2008.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modify Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.8, ‘‘Control Room
Emergency Ventilation System
(CREVS),’’ and introduce TS 5.5.17,
‘‘Control Room Envelope Habitability
Program,’’ consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force-448, Revision
3, ‘‘Control Room Habitability.’’
Date of issuance: July 29, 2008.
Effective date: These license
amendments are effective as of the date
of its issuance and shall be
implemented within 60 days following
completion of the installation and
testing of the plant modifications
described in Amendment Nos. 281 and
258 issued on August 29, 2007.
Amendment Nos.: 287, 264.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments
revised the License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45456)
The letters dated March 12 and June
11, 2008, 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 these amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Carolina Power & Light Company,
Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1
and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
July 17, 2007, as supplemented by
letters February 27 and July 9, 2008.
Brief Description of amendments: The
amendments revise Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2
technical specifications (TS) to adopt
NRC-approved industry Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
standard TS change traveler, TSTF–448,
Revision 3, ‘‘Control Room
Habitability.’’ This technical
specification change was made available
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
Commission on January 17, 2007 (72 FR
2022) as part of the consolidated line
item improvement process. The
amendments modify the BSEP technical
specification requirements regarding
control room envelope habitability in
TS 3.7.3, ‘‘Control Room Emergency
Ventilation (CREV) System,’’ and TS
Section 5.5, ‘‘Programs and Manuals.’’
Date of issuance: July 25, 2008.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be
implemented within 180 days.
Amendment Nos. 248 and 276.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
71 and DPR–62: Amendments change
the technical specifications and add a
license condition.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: (73 FR 29161). The
supplemental letters dated February 27
and July 9, 2008, 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 amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2
and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of application for amendment:
July 2, 2007, as supplemented on May
5, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment modifies the Technical
Specification (TS) 4.0.5 to reference the
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code of Operation
and Maintenance of Nuclear Power
Plants (OM Code) instead of Section XI
of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code. Specifically the amendment
updates the inservice testing (IST) of
ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps
and valves to reflect the requirements in
the ASME OM Code. The amendment
also extends the TS Surveillance
Requirement 4.0.2 25 percent time
extension to other normal and
accelerated frequencies specified as 2
years or less in the IST program. In
addition, the ISI requirement in TS 4.0.5
is being removed and the reference to
the ISI requirement is being updated in
the snubbers’ TS surveillance frequency.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of
issuance.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amendment No.: 304 and 241.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–65 and NPF–49: Amendment
revised the License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR
68210) The supplement dated May 5,
2008, clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change
the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
July 30, 2007, as supplement May 27,
2008, and June 23, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications to allow single supply
header operation of the buried nuclear
service water (RN) system piping for up
to 30 days only during preplanned
maintenance of the buried RN system
piping.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 243 and 237.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
35 and NPF–52: Amendments revised
the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 26, 2008 (73 FR
10296) The supplements dated May 27,
2008, and June 23, 2008, 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 July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County,
New York
Date of application for amendment:
February 7, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TSs) associated with the
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
Surveillance Requirement frequency in
TS 3.1.3, ‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY,’’
consistent with Revision 1 to the TS
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Document TSTF–
475, ‘‘Control Rod Notch Testing
Frequency and SRM [source range
monitor] Insert Control Rod Action’’
(NUREG–1433).
Date of issuance: August 7, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 291.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
59: The amendment revised the License
and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 2, 2008 (73 FR 18008).
The Commission’s related evaluation of
the amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated August 7, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: July 3,
2007.
Brief description of amendment: The
change relocates the quality and
quantity requirements associated with
the emergency diesel generator fuel oil
within the Technical Specifications (TS)
through the creation of a new TS
Limiting Condition for Operation and
the Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program. In
addition, two surveillance requirements
associated with periodic draining,
cleaning and visual inspection of the
fuel oil storage tanks are deleted.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 216.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
38: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41782).
The Commission’s related evaluation of
the amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50–
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,
Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50–
455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Ogle County, Illinois
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2
and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company,
LLC,Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374,
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,
LaSalle County, Illinois
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, et al.,
Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean
County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket
No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
July 19, 2007, as supplemented on July
7, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments will update the
requirements in the Technical
Specifications (TS) 5.3.1 ‘‘Facility Staff
Qualifications,’’ or TS 6.3.1, ‘‘Unit Staff
Qualifications,’’ that have been outdated
based on licensed operator training
programs accredited by the National
Academy for Nuclear Training Academy
Document, ACAD 00–003, Revision 1,
dated April 2004, and the revised Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 55, ‘‘Operators’ Licenses.’’
Date of issuance: July 25, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 152, 152, 156, 156,
180, 228, 220, 189, 176, 265, 267, 271,
240, 235, 265.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
72, NPF–77, NPF–37 and NPF–66, NPF–
62, DPR–19, DPR–25, NPF–11, NPF–18,
DPR–16, DPR–55, DPR–56, DPR–29,
DPR–30 and DPR–50: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR
68214). The supplemental letter
contained clarifying information, did
not change the initial no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and did not expand the scope of the
original Federal Register notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50365
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
December 12, 2007, supplemented by
letter dated June 11, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments consist of changes to the
technical specifications of each unit
regarding administrative issues
involving: (1) Index corrections; (2)
removing requirements or notes that are
no longer applicable; (3) deleting
references to previously deleted
requirements; (4) changing references to
the location of previously relocated
information; and (5) editorial
corrections.
Date of issuance: August 5, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 192 and 153.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
39 and NPF–85. These amendments
revised the license and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25040).
The supplement dated June 11, 2008,
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 August 5, 2008.
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:
July 12, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated June 19 and July 29, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the technical
specifications to adopt Technical
Specifications Task Force–448, Revision
3, ‘‘Control Room Habitability.’’ This
technical specifications improvement
was made available by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), as
part of the consolidated line item
improvement process. The amendment
also adds a license condition regarding
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
50366
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
initial performance of new surveillance
and assessment requirements.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be
implemented within 180 days.
Amendment No.: 230.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
72: Amendment revises the technical
specifications and adds a license
condition.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29163).
The supplements dated June 19 and July
29, 2008, 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 July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No.
50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 17,
2007, as supplemented by letters dated
October 15, 2007, and February 19,
2008.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment revises the Seabrook
Technical Specifications related to
control room envelope habitability
consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–448,
Revision 3.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 6 months.
Amendment No.: 119.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
86: The amendment revised the License
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 6, 2007 (72 FR
62689). The supplemental letters
provided clarifying information within
the scope of the original application and
did not change the staff’s initial
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination dated
November 6, 2007 (72 FR 62689). The
Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated July 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration
comments receives: No.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
issued without opportunity for
comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.resource@nrc.gov.
The Commission is also offering an
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, person(s) may file a request
for a hearing with respect to issuance of
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
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
e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
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/
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50367
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/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
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
50368
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 26, 2008 / Notices
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 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:53 Aug 26, 2008
Jkt 214001
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, the 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.
Duke Power Company LLC, et al.,
Docket No. 50–413, Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 York County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 14,
2008 as supplemented July 14, 2008.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment approved a one-time
extension of the allowed outage time
(AOT) for the 1B auxiliary feedwater
system and the 1B containment spray
system from 72 hours to a total of 9
days.
Date of issuance: July 15, 2008.
Effective date: July 15, 2008.
Amendment No.: 242.
Facility Operating License No. (NPF–
35): Amendment revised the 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 July 15,
2008.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F.
Vaughn, Associate General Counsel and
Managing Attorney, Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, 526 South Church
Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day
of August, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–19369 Filed 8–25–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–461]
Amergen Energy Company; Clinton
Power Station, Unit No. 1; Notice of
Consideration of Approval of Transfer
of Facility Operating License,
Conforming Amendment, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission) is
considering the issuance of an order
under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the
direct transfer of Facility Operating
License No. NPF–62 for the Clinton
Power Station, Unit No. 1 (CPS),
currently held by AmerGen Energy
Company (AmerGen) as owner and
licensed operator of CPS. The transfer
would be to Exelon Generation
Company, LLC (Exelon Generation). The
Commission is also considering
amending the license for administrative
purposes to reflect the proposed
transfer.
According to an application for
approval dated June 20, 2008, filed by
AmerGen and Exelon Generation,
Exelon Generation would acquire
ownership of the facility, following
approval of the proposed license
transfer, and would be responsible for
the operation, maintenance and
eventual decommissioning of CPS.
No physical changes to the Facility or
operational changes are being proposed
in the application.
The proposed amendment would
replace references to AmerGen in the
license with Exelon Generation, to
reflect the proposed transfer.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,
or any right thereunder, shall be
transferred, directly or indirectly,
through transfer of control of the
license, unless the Commission shall
give its consent in writing. The
Commission will approve an
application for the direct transfer of a
license, if the Commission determines
that the proposed transferee is qualified
to hold the license, and that the transfer
is otherwise consistent with applicable
provisions of law, regulations, and
orders issued by the Commission
pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed
conforming license amendment, the
Commission will have made findings
required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless
otherwise determined by the
Commission with regard to a specific
application, the Commission has
determined that any amendment to the
C:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50356-50368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19369]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 July 31, 2008 to August 13, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46926).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
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-
[[Page 50357]]
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 6D44, 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 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.
[[Page 50358]]
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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 7, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
allow the use of a methodology to determine the seismic loads on the
recently upgraded Auxiliary Building crane. The upgrade was to make the
crane single-failure-proof through replacement of the crane trolley,
and modification of the existing crane bridge. The proposed seismic
analysis methodology has not been approved for use at KPS, and is thus
not currently in the KPS Updated Safety Analysis Report. The proposed
methodology recognizes the inherent propensity for structures not fixed
to one another (e.g., steel wheels on steel rails) to roll if
sufficient lateral force is applied. The licensee proposed this seismic
analysis methodology for use solely on the Auxiliary Building crane
upgrade. The licensee stated that recognition of wheel rolling between
the crane trolley and bridge and their respective rails reflects the
true nature of the installed equipment and its response to horizontal
forces generated by a seismic event.
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. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and has
prepared its own as follows:
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment pertains solely to a nonlinear seismic
analysis method supporting the upgrade of the KPS Auxiliary Building
crane from a non-single-failure-proof design to a single-failure
proof design. Specifically, the existing crane trolley has been
replaced with a state-of-the-art design that is single-failure-
proof. The crane does not interface with operating plant equipment,
and will continue to be able to withstand a design-basis seismic
event without an uncontrolled lowering of the load. Thus, the
probability and consequences of a load drop are not increased by the
upgrade and proposed change in seismic analysis methodology.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed amendment pertains to an analysis method
supporting the upgrade of an existing plant component. This seismic
analysis methodology is proposed for use solely on the crane upgrade
and not for any other plant structures, systems, or components. The
design-rated load of the crane main hoist remains the same (i.e.,
125
[[Page 50359]]
tons). This load bounds the design and supporting analysis. The
auxiliary hook design rated load has been increased from 10 tons to
15 tons. The proposed amendment does not change the previously
evaluated and currently acceptable heavy load handling practices in
use at KPS. The number and types of lifts made using this crane in
support of KPS plant operations will not significantly change from
those contemplated during original plant licensing. Furthermore, the
basic operations of the crane (i.e., hoisting and horizontal travel)
will remain the same. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
create a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The purpose of the proposed methodology is to determine the
design loads (forces and moments), accelerations, and displacements
on the crane and building support structure. These loads will
subsequently be used to perform the structural analysis of these
components to confirm that the design meets all applicable
acceptance criteria using previously approved industry codes and
standards for such analyses. If the stresses computed in the
structural components as a result of a seismic event are less than
the limits contained in these codes, the structural integrity of the
crane is maintained, and a suspended load will remain suspended
during a seismic event. Meeting these code limits maintains an
acceptable margin of safety for the individual components and the
crane as a whole. Therefore, 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
its own analysis, proposes 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 Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 16, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
align the Technical Specifications (TS) with the results of an
evaluation performed according to Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory
Letter NSAL-07-7, ``Short-Term Recriticality During a PWR [pressurized-
water reactor] Large-Break LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident].'' NSAL-07-7
advised that the potential exists for recriticality to occur during a
large-break LOCA in the reflood stage after a LOCA. Westinghouse
determined that Kewaunee is not susceptible to the subject issue based
on the current KPS practice of maintaining safety injection (SI)
accumulator boron concentration at or above 2500 ppm. However, to
ensure that the KPS TS are conservative with respect to the results of
NSAL-07-7, the licensee proposed to raise the minimum required boron
concentration for the SI accumulators specified by the TS from the
current 1900 parts-per-million (ppm) to 2400 ppm.
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 reproduced below:
(1) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Increasing the minimum required boron concentration in the SI
accumulators does not add, delete, or modify any Kewaunee systems,
structures, or components (SSCs). The SI accumulators and their
contents are not accident initiators. Rather, they are designed for
accident mitigation. The effects of an increase in the minimum SI
accumulator boron concentration from 1900 ppm to 2400 ppm are
bounded by previous evaluations and determined to be acceptable.
Thus, the proposed increase in minimum SI accumulator boron
concentration has no adverse effect on the ability of the plant to
mitigate the effects of design[-]basis accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Increasing the minimum required boron concentration in the SI
accumulators does not change the design function of the SI
accumulators or the SSCs designed to deliver borated water from the
SI accumulators to the core. Increasing the minimum required boron
concentration in the SI accumulators does not create any credible
new failure mechanisms or malfunctions for plant equipment or the
nuclear fuel. The reactivity control function of the borated water
in the SI accumulators is not being changed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
An evaluation has been performed that shows that maintaining
boron concentration at a minimum of 2400 ppm is sufficient to assure
that acceptable results for design[-]basis accident analyses will be
maintained considering the reactivity of the core. Increasing the
minimum boron concentration in the Sl accumulator from 1900 ppm to a
minimum of 2400 ppm increases the margin of safety in the Kewaunee
safety analyses, since additional post-accident negative reactivity
will be available to the core. This additional negative reactivity
compensates for the potential for recriticality occurring during the
short-term reflood period during the large[-]break loss-of-coolant
accident. Additionally, the proposed new minimum boron concentration
of 2400 ppm is within the range required by current safety analyses
(i.e., 1900 ppm to 2625 ppm), and well below the currently
acceptable maximum boron concentration of 2625 ppm.
The proposed amendment does not result in altering or exceeding
a design basis or safety limit for the plant. All current fuel
design criteria will continue to be satisfied, and the safety
analysis of record, including evaluations of the radiological
consequences of design[-]basis accidents, will remain applicable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and determines
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 Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: (1)
Revise the Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR
3.1.3.2) frequency in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2)
clarify the requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for
the limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required
Action E.2, ``Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation,'' and (3) revise
Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability
of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The licensee is
proposing to adopt the approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1, ``Control Rod Notch
Testing Frequency.''
[[Page 50360]]
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Model
Application Concerning Technical Specification Improvement To Revise
Control Rod Notch Surveillance Frequency, Clarify SRM Insert Control
Rod Action, and Clarify Frequency Example'' associated with TSTF-275,
Revision 1, in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 (72 FR 63935).
The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination and a model license
amendment request, using the consolidated line item improvement
process. In its application dated June 30, 2008, the licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model NSHC determination which is presented
below:
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC determination is presented
below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change generically implements TSTF-475, Revision 1,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert Control Rod
Action.'' TSTF-475, Revision 1 modifies NUREG-1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG-
1434 (BWR/6) STS [(Standard Technical Specifications)]. The changes:
(1) Revise TS testing frequency for surveillance requirement (SR)
3.1.3.2 in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the
requirement to fully insert all insertable control rods for the
limiting condition for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action
E.2, ``Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation'' (NUREG-1434 only), and
(3) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 ``Frequency'' to clarify the
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The
consequences [and probability] of an accident after adopting TSTF-475,
Revision 1 are no different than the consequences [and probability] of
an accident prior to adoption. Therefore, this change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
TSTF-475, Revision 1 will: (1) [revise the TS SR 3.1.3.2 frequency
in TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (2) clarify the requirement
to fully insert all insertable control rods for the limiting condition
for operation (LCO) in TS 3.3.1.2, ``Source Range Monitoring
Instrumentation,'' and (3)] revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4
``Frequency'' to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance
test interval extension. [The GE Nuclear Energy Report, ``CRD Notching
Surveillance Testing for Limerick Generating Station,'' dated November
2006, concludes that extending the control rod notch test interval from
weekly to monthly is not expected to impact the reliability of the
scram system and that the analysis supports the decision to change the
surveillance frequency.] Therefore, the proposed changes in TSTF-475,
Revision 1 [* * *] do not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee
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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Mohan C. Thadani.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements (SRs)
3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.15, and 3.8.1.20, to clarify the requirements
for the start time test performed by these SRs. The current requirement
is to have the diesel generator (DG) within the voltage and frequency
limits less than or equal to 10 seconds after the start signal. The
proposed change is to have the DG above the minimum voltage and
frequency within 10 seconds and verified to be within the voltage and
frequency limits at steady state conditions. The change is consistent
with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler, TSTF-163,
``Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and Frequency,'' Revision 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance requirements to clarify
what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of the DG start testing.
The revised requirements do not affect the function of the DGs.
The DGs and their associated emergency loads are accident mitigating
features whose failure modes could not act as accident initiators or
precursors. The proposed change does not impact the physical
configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, or inspected. The proposed change does not
impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, nor does it
impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the DGs, the
operational characteristics of the DGs, the interfaces between the
DGs and other plant systems, the function, or the reliability of the
DGs. Thus, the DGs will be capable of performing their accident
mitigation function and there is no impact to the radiological
consequences of any accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance requirements to clarify
what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of DG testing.
The function of the DGs is not altered by this change. The
proposed change does not involve a modification to the physical
configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not introduce a
[[Page 50361]]
new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction
mechanism.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises surveillance requirements to clarify
what voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the
transient and steady state portions of DG testing.
The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers,
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the DGs which serve to
support these barriers in the event of an accident concurrent with a
loss of offsite power. The proposed change doesn't affect the DG's
capabilities to provide emergency power to plant equipment that
mitigate the consequences of the accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Russell Gibbs.
FPL Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: February 8, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to change
the Technical Specifications to delete Surveillance Requirement
4.6.3.1, which specifies post-maintenance testing requirements for
containment isolation valves (CIVs).
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 changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment to the technical specifications, which is
consistent with NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants,'' removes the surveillance requirement related
to post-maintenance testing of containment isolation valves (CIVs).
Surveillance requirements are not initiators of accidents;
consequently, the proposed change does not significantly increase
the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change does not alter the requirements regarding operability of
CIVs, and appropriate testing will continue to confirm the
operability of these valves following maintenance activities. The
CIVs will continue to be tested in a manner and at a frequency that
demonstrates they remain capable of performing their intended safety
function. As a result, the proposed amendment does not significantly
affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures. The change does
not add new equipment to the plant, does not modify or remove
existing equipment, and does not significantly change the operation
of the plant. The ability of any operable equipment to perform its
specified safety function is unaffected by this change. Therefore,
the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter the initial conditions or
results of any accident analyses. The operability requirements,
performance, and design of the CIVs are unchanged with this proposed
change. The CIVs will continue to meet the design bases for the
containment isolation system as described in the Seabrook Station
[updated final safety analysis report]. The proposed amendment will
minimize unnecessary testing of CIVs. Therefore, the proposed change
does 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: H. Chernoff.
GPU Nuclear, Inc., Docket No. 50-320, Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The amendment application
proposes to delete Technical Specification (TS) 6.5, ``Review and
Audit.'' Specifically, the proposed change would delete TS 6.5.1,
``Technical Review and Control'' and TS 6.5.3, ``Audits,'' which will
be implemented by the current and proposed changes to the GPU Nuclear
Post-Defueling Monitored Storage Quality Assurance Plan for Three Mile
Island Unit 2 (PDMS QAP). The proposed change would also delete TS
6.5.2, ``Independent Safety Review Function,'' with no replacement.
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?
No.
No physical changes to the TMI-2 Facility will occur as a result
of this proposed amendment. The proposed changes will not alter the
physical design or operational procedures associated with any plant
structure, system, or component. As such, the change is
administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of analyzed
events or assumed mitigation of accidents.
The proposed changes involve the deletion of several
administrative requirements from the Technical Specifications (TS).
The TS requirements involve Technical Review and Control and Audits
that are now controlled under the TMI-2 Post Defueling Monitored
Storage Quality Assurance Plan (PDMS QAP).
In accordance with the guidance provided in NRC Administrative
Letter 95-06, ``Relocation of Technical Specification Administrative
Controls related to Quality Assurance,'' the proposed changes are an
acceptable method for removing technical specification quality
assurance requirements.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated? No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed
changes do not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety
analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant.
Accordingly, the changes do not introduce any new accident
initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities
of any plant structure, system, or component to perform their safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety? No.
[[Page 50362]]
The proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory guidance
regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The
guidance is presented in Administrative Letter 95-06 and NUREG-1430.
The relocation of these administrative requirements to the PDMS QAP
will not reduce the quality assurance commitments as accepted by the
NRC, nor reduce administrative controls essential to the safe
operation of the plant. Future changes to these administrative
requirements will be performed in accordance with NRC regulation 10
CFR 50.54(a), consistent with the guidance identified above.
Accordingly, the replacement of TS requirements by existing proposed
TMI-2 PDMS QAP requirements results in an equivalent level of
regulatory control.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to control
building envelope habitability in TS Section 3.7.3 Control Room
Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System, and add TS Section 5.5.13, Control
Building Envelope Habitability Program, to the Administrative Section
of the TSs. The licensee has included conforming technical changes to
the TS Bases. The proposed revision to the Bases also includes
editorial and administrative changes to reflect applicable changes to
the corresponding TS Bases, which were made to improve clarity, conform
with the latest information and references, correct factual errors, and
achieve more consistency with the standard TS NUREGs. The proposed
revision to the TSs and associated Bases is similar to TS Task Force
Traveler No. TSTF-448, Revision 3. However the references to chemical
and smoke hazards are not included in the proposed revision to TS
Section 3.7.3, TS Section 5.5.13 and TS Bases 3.7.3, as the CREV System
was not designed to protect the control room envelope (CRE) occupants
from these hazards and no toxic gas detectors are provided to initiate
a CRE isolation.
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 (NSHC) through incorporation by reference of the NSHC
determination published in the Federal Register Notice dated January
17, 2007 (73 FR 2022), which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed Technical Specification change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis.
The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation
capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its
functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing
basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to
CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing
the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions
and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore,
this change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed Technical Specification change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not affect safety
analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis for an
unacceptable period of time without compensatory measures. The
proposed change does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements consistent with
the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-419, Revision 0, ``Revise PTLR
[Pressure and Temperature Limits Report] Definition and References in
ISTS [Improved Standard TS] 5.6.6, RCS [Reactor Coolant System] PTLR.''
The proposed change would reference only the Topical Report (TR) number
and title in TS 5.6.6, ``Reactor Coolant System (RCS) PRESSURE AND
TEMPERATURE LIMITS REPORT (PTLR).'' This would allow the use of
currently approved TRs to determine the pressure and temperature limits
in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the Operating
License. The change would not alter (1) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) reviewed and approved analytical methods used to
determine the pressure and temperature limits or Low Temperature
Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System setpoints, or (2) the requirement
to use NRC-approved analytical methods to determine the limits or
setpoints.
[[Page 50363]]
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 (NSHC), which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T [pressure/temperature] limits or LTOP System
setpoints that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC. This
method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use of current
[NRC-approved] Topical Reports to support limits in the PTLR without
having to submit an amendment to the Operating License.
Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports would still receive
regulatory reviews and where required receive NRC review and
approval. The proposed changes to add ``LTOP arming'' into TS
5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and temperature limit established and
documented in the PTLR and deletion of ``and Cold Overpressure
Mitigation System'' from TS 5.6.6b are administrative changes for
consistency. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed changes do not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures. The proposed changes are consistent with safety
analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T limits or LTOP System setpoints that have been
reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical
Reports would allow the use of current [NRC-approved] Topical
Reports to support limits in the PTLR without having to submit an
amendment to the Operating License. Implementation of revisions to
Topical Reports would still receive regulatory reviews and where
required receive NRC review and approval. The proposed changes to
add ``LTOP arming'' into TS 5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and
temperature limit established and documented in the PTLR and
deletion of ``and Cold Overpressure Mitigation System'' from TS
5.6.6b are administrative changes for consistency. The changes do
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes
do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any
existing requirements [except that NRC-approved TRs can be used
without an amendment]. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to reference the Topical Report number and
title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine the P/T limits or LTOP System setpoints that have been
reviewed and approved by the NRC. This method of referencing Topical
Reports would allow the use of current Topical Reports to support
limits in the PTLR without having to submit an amendment to the
Operating License. Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports
would still receive regulatory reviews and where required receive
NRC review and approval. The proposed changes to add ``LTOP arming''
into TS 5.6.6a. as a RCS pressure and temperature limit established
and documented in the PTLR and deletion of ``and Cold Overpressure
Mitigation System'' from TS 5.6.6b are administrative changes for
consistency. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed
changes. Sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon
demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. Therefore,
it is concluded that this change does 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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief (Acting): Jack N. Donohew.
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.
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.
[[Page 50364]]
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments: June 29, 2007, as supplemented
by letters dated March 12 and June 11, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.8, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System
(CREVS),'' and introduce TS 5.5.17, ``Control Room Envelope
Habitability Program,'' consistent with Technical Specification Task
Force-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
Date of issuance: July 29, 2008.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of its issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days following
completion of the installation and testing of the plant modifications
described in Amendment Nos. 281 and 258 issued on August 29, 2007.
Amendment Nos.: 287, 264.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45456)
The letters dated March 12 and June 11, 2008, 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 these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: July 17, 2007, as supplemented
by letters February 27 and July 9, 2008.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments revise Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2 technical specifications
(TS) to adopt NRC-approved industry Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) standard TS change traveler, TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control
Room Habitability.'' This technical specification change was made
available by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on January 17, 2007
(72 FR 2022) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
The amendments modify the BSEP technical specification requirements
regarding control room envelope habitability in TS 3.7.3, ``Control
Room Emergency Ventilation (CREV) System,'' and TS Section 5.5,
``Programs and Manuals.''
Date of issuance: July 25, 2008.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 180
days.
Amendment Nos. 248 and 276.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the technical specifications and add a license condition.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: (73 FR 29161). The
supplemental letters dated February 27 and July 9, 2008, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: July 2, 2007, as supplemented on
May 5, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
Technical Specification (TS) 4.0.5 to reference the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code of Operation and Maintenance of
Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) instead of Section XI of the ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code. Specifically the amendment updates the
inservice testing (IST) of ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 pumps and valves
to reflect the requirements in the ASME OM Code. The amendment also
extends the TS Surveillance Requirement 4.0.2 25 percent time extension
to other normal and accelerated frequencies specified as 2 years or
less in the IST program. In addition, the ISI requirement in TS 4.0.5
is being removed and the reference to the ISI requirement is being
updated in the snubbers' TS surveillance frequency.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 304 and 241.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49:
Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (72 FR
68210) The supplement dated May 5, 2008, clarified the application, did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did
not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: July 30, 2007, as supplement
May 27, 2008, and June 23, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to allow single supply header operation of the
buried nuclear service water (RN) system piping for up to 30 days only
during preplanned maintenance of the buried RN system piping.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 243 and 237.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of