Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 34044-34052 [E9-16347]
Download as PDF
34044
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
On February 17, 2009, President
Obama signed into law the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
commonly known as the economic
stimulus package. The new provision of
the Trade Act went into effect on May
18, 2009 and applies to petitions filed
on or after that date. The petition at
hand was filed on March 30, 2009, and
therefore, cannot be considered under
the new provision.
The workers are encouraged to file a
new petition, if the workers wish to be
considered under the New TAA
Program.
Conclusion
After review of the application and
investigative findings, I conclude that
there has been no error or
misinterpretation of the law or of the
facts which would justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day
of June, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–16631 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–65,433]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
American Racing Equipment, LLC,
Denver, CO; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On May 11, 2009, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of the subject firm. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on June 16, 2009 (74 FR 28552).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that imports of two-piece
automotive wheels did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject firm and no shift of production
to a foreign source occurred.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that the workers of the
subject firm also supported production
of cast, one piece wheels. The petitioner
alleged that the subject firm shifted
production of the cast, one piece wheels
abroad and that there was an increase in
imports of the cast, one piece wheels.
The Department of Labor contacted a
company official to verify this
information. The company official
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
stated that the workers of the subject
firm distributed the cast, one piece
wheels which were mostly
manufactured in China. The company
official also stated that the subject firm
ceased production of the cast, one piece
wheels long before 2008 and that no
cast, one piece wheels were
manufactured by American Racing
Equipment, LLC during the relevant
period.
When assessing eligibility for Trade
Adjustment Assistance, the Department
exclusively considers production, shifts
in production and import impact during
the relevant time period (one year prior
to the date of the petition). Therefore,
events occurring prior to February 26,
2008, are outside of the relevant period
and are not relevant in this
investigation. The investigation revealed
that workers of the subject firm did not
manufacture the cast, one piece wheels
and did not support production of the
cast, one piece wheels at any affiliated
domestic facility during the relevant
period.
To support the allegation of a shift in
production to China the petitioner
attached an e-mail correspondence from
an American Racing Equipment, LLC
employee dated March 13, 2008.
Upon further analysis it was revealed
that the document contains a review of
the subject firm’s sales for the month of
February 2008. The letter also refers to
the negative impact of bad winter
conditions in China to the Chinese
production which was the reason of
reduced sales at the subject firm in
February 2008.
The investigation revealed that the
above mentioned document does not
contain any information which supports
the petitioner allegation regarding
production of the cast, one piece wheels
by workers of the subject firm or a shift
in production of the cast, one piece
wheels during the relevant period.
The petitioner also attached a letter
dated June 29, 2007 signed by a
company official.
Documents referring to the events
which took place in 2007 are outside of
the relevant time period and cannot be
considered in this investigation.
The petitioner also attached a
spreadsheet named ‘‘Salesperson Pace
Report—Daily Needs’’. The Department
reviewed the document and determined
that it does not contain any additional
valid information as it relates to this
determination.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
workers and former workers of
American Racing Equipment, LLC,
Denver, Colorado.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of
June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–16630 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0306]
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)
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 June 18,
2009, to July 1, 2009. The last biweekly
notice was published on June 30, 2009
(74 FR 31318).
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
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92,
this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
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 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking and
Directives Branch (RDB), TWB–05–
B01M, 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
faxed to the RDB at 301–492–3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
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,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the petitioner/
requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner/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/requestor 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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34045
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 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 all adjudicatory 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
an exemption in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
petitioner/requestor should contact the
Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@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
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
34046
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or
representative) already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Each
petitioner/requestor will need to
download the Workplace Forms
ViewerTM to access the Electronic
Information Exchange (EIE), a
component of the E-Filing system. The
Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and
is available at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
Information about applying for a digital
ID certificate is available on NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals/applycertificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has
obtained a digital ID certificate, had a
docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to
intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in
accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the filer submits its
documents through EIE. To be timely,
an electronic filing must be submitted to
the EIE system no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing
system time-stamps the document and
sends the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory e-filing system
may seek assistance through the
‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the NRC
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html or by calling the
NRC Meta-System Help Desk, which is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays. The
Meta-System Help Desk can be
contacted by telephone at 1–866–672–
7640 or by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
exemption request, 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 request and/or petition 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).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NBC’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, unless an NRC regulation
or other law requires submission of such
information. 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
submissions.
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, 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
O1F21, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–
4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
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 amendments request: May 13,
2009.
Description of amendments request:
The amendment would incorporate
Technical Specification Task Force
Traveler (TSTF) 479–A, Revision 0,
‘‘Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR
50.55a,’’ and TSTF 497–A, Revision 0,
‘‘Limit Inservice Testing Program SR
3.0.2 Application to Frequencies of 2
Years or Less,’’ approved by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) on
December 6, 2005 and October 4, 2006
respectively. The proposed changes
revise the Improved Standard Technical
Specification administrative controls of
the Inservice Testing Program to be
consistent with the requirements of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Section 50.55a(f)(4) for
pumps and valves classified as
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, Class 2,
and Class 3.
The proposed change replaces
references to ASME Section XI of the
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with
references to the ASME Code for
Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
Power Plants within Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.8. In TS 5.5.8.b,
the proposed change applies the
extension of Surveillance Requirement
3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated
inservice testing frequencies of 2 years
or less that were not included in the
frequencies of the table listed in TS
5.5.8.a.
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. Operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace, within
TS 5.5.8, references to Section XI of ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, with
references to the ASME Code for Operation
and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants
(OM Code). In addition the proposed change
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
adds words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the
extension allowance of the Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and
accelerated inservice testing frequencies of
two years or less that were not included in
the frequencies of the table listed in TS
5.5.8.a.
The proposed change is administrative,
does not affect any accident initiators, does
not affect the ability to successfully respond
to previously evaluated accidents and does
not affect radiological assumptions used in
the evaluations. Thus, operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed
change will not involve an increase in the
probability or 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. Operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace, within
TS 5.5.8 references to Section XI of ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with
references to the ASME OM Code. In
addition the proposed change also adds
words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the
extension allowance of Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and
accelerated inservice testing frequencies of
two years or less that were not included in
the frequencies of the table listed in TS
5.5.8.a.
The proposed change does not involve a
modification to the physical configuration of
the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or involve a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change will not impose any new or
different requirements or introduce a new
accident initiator, accident precursor, or
malfunction mechanism. Additionally there
is no change in the types or increase in the
amounts of any effluent that may be released
offsite and there is no increase in individual
or cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed change will replace, within
TS 5.5.8 references to Section XI of ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with
references to the ASME OM Code. In
addition the proposed change also adds
words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the
extension allowance of Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and
accelerated inservice testing frequencies of
two years or less that were not included in
the frequencies of the table listed in TS
5.5.8.a.
The proposed change does not involve a
modification to the physical configuration of
the operating units or change the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change incorporates revisions to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
the ASME Code that results in a net
improvement in the measures for testing
pumps and valves. The safety functions of
the applicable pumps and valves will be
maintained.
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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendments request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming,
Sr. Counsel—Nuclear Generation,
Constellation Generation Group, LLC,
750 East Pratt Street, 17th floor,
Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Richard
Guzman.
DTE Energy, Inc., Docket No. 50–16,
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit
1, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March
25, 2009.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would add a
license condition incorporating a site
license termination plan (LTP) for the
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit
1 (Fermi-1). The proposed license
condition includes LTP change control
criteria specifying when changes to the
LTP require prior Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approval. Since Fermi-1 is
completely within the boundary of Unit
2, the Fermi-1 property would become
part of Unit 2 site upon successful
completion of license termination
activities.
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. Will operation of the facility in
accordance with this proposed change
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The change allows for the approval of
the LTP and provides the criteria for when
changes to the LTP require prior NRC
approval. This change does not affect
possible initiating events for the three
postulated accidents previously evaluated in
the Fermi-1 Safety Analysis Report (SAR), as
updated, or alter the configuration or
operation of the facility. Safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, and limiting
control systems are no longer applicable to
Fermi-1 in the permanently defueled
condition, and are therefore not considered
further. The proposed change does not affect
the boundaries used to evaluate compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34047
with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and
has no impact on plant operations.
Therefore, the proposed license
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
probability of a new or different accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The safety analysis for the facility
remains accurate as described in the Fermi1 SAR, as updated, Section 8.4, Postulated
Radiological Accidents. There are sections of
the LTP that make reference to the
decommissioning activities still remaining
(e.g., removal of large components,
decontamination, etc.), however these
activities are performed in accordance with
approved Fermi-1 work authorizations and
undergo 10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to
initiation. The plant conditions for which the
postulated accidents have been evaluated are
still valid and no new accident scenarios,
failure mechanisms, or single failures are
introduced by this amendment. The system
operating procedures are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes will 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?
No. There are no changes to the design or
operation of the facility resulting from this
amendment. The proposed change does not
affect the boundaries used to evaluate
compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent
limits, and has no impact on plant shutdown
operations. Accordingly, neither the
postulated accident assumptions in the
Fermi-1 SAR, as updated, nor the basis of the
Technical Specifications are affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented
above it appears that the three standards
of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David Pettinari.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No.
50–382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 3,
2009.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change will modify
Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1 to
account for the Combustion Engineering
(CE) 16 x 16 Next Generation Fuel
(NGF) and different U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed
and approved Departure from Nucleate
Boiling (DNB) correlations. These new
correlations will be implemented in the
safety analyses for the next fuel cycle of
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
34048
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
operation consistent with NRCapproved methodologies.
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.
No changes to plant equipment or
operating procedures are required due to the
change in the safety limit for DNBR
[Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio]. This
change does not impact any of the accident
initiators. The analyses of the reload are
performed using NRC-approved
methodologies to ensure the Specified
Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs), of
which DNBR is one, are not violated. The
current DNBR setpoint continues to ensure
automatic protective action and is initiated to
prevent exceeding the proposed DNBR safety
limit.
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 does not involve any
plant modifications or change in the way the
plant is designed to function. The proposed
change is not associated with any accident
precursor or initiator. The proposed change
supports the loading and use of Next
Generation Fuel (NGF) at Waterford 3 as
previously approved by the NRC.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The use of the NRC-approved NGF WSSV–
T correlation with the ABB–NV correlation to
establish a new bounding DNBR safety limit
of 1.24, preserves the DNBR margin of safety
at a 95/95 level. The Core Protection
Calculator (CPC) DNBR power adjustment
addressable constant BERR1 is calculated
based on the WSSV–T and ABB–NV CHF
[Critical Heat Flux] correlations such that a
CPC trip at a DNBR of 1.26 using the CE–1
CHF correlation ensures that the bounding
DNBR safety limit of 1.24 for the WSSV–T
and ABB–NV CHF correlations will not be
violated during normal operation and AOOs
[anticipated operational occurrences] to at
least a 95/95 probability/confidence level.
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, based on this
review, it appears that the three
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
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: Terence A.
Burke, Associate General Counsel—
Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340
Echelon Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi
39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of
Two Creeks, Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: April 17,
2009.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would amend the
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
DPR–24 and DPR–27 for Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
respectively, to reflect a change in the
legal name of the Licensee from ‘‘FPL
Energy Point Beach, LLC’’ to ‘‘NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC.’’
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?
Response: No.
This request is for administrative changes
only. No actual facility equipment or
accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, this request
will have no impact on 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 request is for administrative changes
only. No actual facility equipment or
accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes and no failure modes not
bounded by previously evaluated accidents
will be created. Therefore, this request will
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?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. This request is
for administrative changes only. No actual
plant equipment or accident analyses will be
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
affected by the proposed changes.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not
relax any criteria used to establish safety
limits, will not relax any safety system
settings, and will not relax the bases for any
limiting conditions of operation. Therefore,
these proposed changes will not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Antonio
Fernandez, Esquire, Senior Attorney,
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box
14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
50–328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit
2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 21,
2009 (TSC 09–02).
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs)
Section 6.8.4.k, ‘‘Steam Generator
Program,’’ for Unit 2 including
associated TSs Bases 3/4.4.5, ‘‘Steam
Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,’’ to allow
the implementation of SG tubing
alternate repair criteria for axial
indications in the Westinghouse Electric
Company explosive tube expansion
region below the top of the tubesheet
and specify the W* distance for the SG
cold legs.
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?
Response: No.
Of the various accidents previously
evaluated, the proposed changes only affects
the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR)
event evaluation and the postulated steam
line break (SLB) accident evaluation. Loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a
compressive axial load to act on the tube.
Therefore, since the LOCA tends to force the
tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out,
it is not a factor in this amendment request.
Another faulted load consideration is a safe
shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the
seismic analysis of Westinghouse 51 Series
steam generators (SGs) has shown that axial
loading of the tubes is negligible during an
SSE.
TVA’s [Tennessee Valley Authority’s]
amendment request allows taking credit for
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
how the tubesheet enhances the tube
integrity in the Westinghouse Electric
Company explosive tube expansion
(WEXTEX) region by precluding tube
deformation beyond its initial expanded
outside diameter. For the SGTR and SLB
events, the required structural margins of the
SG tubes will be maintained due to the
presence of the tubesheet. Tube rupture is
precluded for axial cracks in the WEXTEX
region due to the constraint provided by the
tubesheet. Therefore, the normal operating
3DP margin and the postulated accident
1.43DP margin against burst are maintained.
The W* length supplies the necessary
resistive force to preclude pullout loads
under both normal operating and accident
conditions. The contact pressure results from
the WEXTEX process, thermal expansion
mismatch between the tube and tubesheet
and from the differential pressure between
the primary and secondary side. Therefore,
the proposed change results in no significant
increase in the probability or the occurrence
of an SGTR or SLB accident.
The proposed changes do not affect other
systems, structures, components or
operational features. Therefore, based on the
above evaluation, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The consequences of an SGTR event are
primarily affected by the primary-tosecondary flow rate and the time duration of
the primary-to-secondary flow during the
event. Primary-to-secondary flow rate
through a postulated ruptured tube (i.e.,
complete severance of a single SG tube) is not
affected by the proposed change since the
flow rate is based on the inside diameter of
a SG tube and the pressure differential.
TVA’s amendment request does not change
either of these. The duration of primary-tosecondary leakage is based on the time
required for an operator to determine that an
SGTR has occurred, the time to identify and
isolate the faulty SG, and ensure termination
of radioactive release to the atmosphere from
the faulty SG. TVA’s amendment request
does not affect the duration of the primaryto-secondary leakage because it does not
change the control room indicators with
which an operator would determine that an
SGTR has occurred. The consequences of an
SGTR are secondarily affected by primary-tosecondary leakage, which could occur due to
axial cracks remaining in service in the
WEXTEX region in a non-faulted SG. During
a SGTR, the primary-to-secondary differential
pressure is less than or equal to the normal
operating differential pressure; therefore, the
primary-to-secondary leakage due to axial
cracks in the WEXTEX region of a nonfaulted SG during a SGTR would be less than
or equal to the primary-to-secondary leakage
experienced during normal operation.
Primary-to-secondary leakage is considered
in the calculation determining the
consequences of a SGTR and the value is
bounding.
The postulated SLB has the greatest
primary-to-secondary pressure differential,
and therefore could experience the greatest
primary-to-secondary leakage. TVA’s
amendment request allows axial cracks to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
remain in service in the WEXTEX region,
which have the possibility of primary-tosecondary leakage during a postulated SLB
accident. However, the primary-to-secondary
leakage would be limited by the amount the
crack face can open (compared to a similar
free-span axial crack) and by the restriction
resulting from the tube to tubesheet contact
pressure which create a restricted leakage
path from the upper tip of the crack to the
top of the WEXTEX expansion. TVA’s
amendment request requires the aggregate
leakage, (i.e., the combined leakage for the
tubes with axial cracks in the WEXTEX
region) plus the combined leakage developed
by other alternate repair criteria (ARC), to
remain below the maximum allowable SLB
primary-to-secondary leakage rate limit such
that the doses are maintained to less than a
fraction of the 10 CFR 100 limits and also
less than the General Design Criteria (GDC)–
19 limits.
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.
TVA’s amendment request does not
introduce any physical changes to the
Sequoyah Unit 2 SGs. TVA’s amendment
request takes credit for how the tubesheet
enhances the SG tube integrity in the
WEXTEX region by precluding tube
deformation beyond its initial expanded
outside diameter and allows axial cracks in
the WEXTEX region to remain in service if
prescribed criteria are met. Removal of the
existing primary water stress corrosion
cracking (PWSCC) axial at dented tube
support plate ARC incorporates the more
conservative TS limit for SG tube plugging.
A failure to meet SG tube integrity results in
an SGTR. Because the circumferential cracks
detected within the WEXTEX region are
required to be plugged, it is highly unlikely
that a W* tube would fail as a result of a
circumferential defect. Therefore, a tube
severance which would strike neighboring
tubes and create a multiple tube rupture is
not credible.
The proposed change does not introduce
any new equipment or any change to existing
equipment. No new effects on existing
equipment are created.
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.
The amendment request maintains the
structural margins of the SG tubes for both
normal and accident conditions that are
required by Regulatory Guide 1.121.
For primarily axially oriented cracking
located within the tubesheet, tube burst is
precluded because of the presence of the
tubesheet. WCAP–14797 defines a length,
W*, of degradation free expanded tubing that
provides the necessary resistance to tube
pullout due to the pressure induced forces
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34049
(with applicable safety factor applied).
Application of the W* criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage
during all plant conditions. The methodology
for determining leakage provides for large
margins between calculated and actual
leakage values in the W* criteria.
Plugging of the SG tubes reduces the
reactor coolant flow margin for core cooling.
Implementation of the proposed changes is
expected to result in plugging of fewer tubes
than with the current criteria. Thus,
implementation of the proposed changes will
maintain the margin of flow that may have
otherwise been reduced by tube plugging.
It is concluded that the proposed changes
do not result in a significant reduction of
margin with respect to plant safety as defined
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
or TSs.
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: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A,
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry
Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry
County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 13,
2009.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change revises Technical
Specifications (TS) Table 3.7–1 Operator
Action 3.b and provides direction if the
less-than-required-minimum-operablechannels-condition for the nuclear flux
intermediate range occurs between 7%
and 11% of rated power.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed license amendment
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change revises TS Table
3.7–1 Operator Action 3.b and provides
direction if the less-than-required-minimumoperable-channels-condition for the nuclear
flux intermediate range occurs between 7%
and 11% of rated power. Required action
between 7% and 11% of rated power is
currently not addressed in the Operator
Action 3.b. The proposed TS change does not
involve a physical change to any structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) at Surry
Power Station; nor does it change any of the
previously evaluated accidents in the
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
34050
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Thus, this change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change revises TS Table
3.7–1 Operator Action 3.b, and provides
required action between 7% and 11% of
rated power, which is currently not
addressed in the Operator Action 3.b. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
change to any SSCs, and there is no impact
on their design function. The proposed
change does not affect initiators of analyzed
events. Therefore, the proposed change does
not introduce any new failures that could
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. The proposed change provides
required action for inoperability of nuclear
flux intermediate range instrumentation
between 7% and 11% of rated power in TS
Table 3.7–1 Operator Action 3.b. Margin of
safety is established through the design of
plant SSCs, the parameters within which the
plant is operated, and the establishment of
the setpoints for the actuation of equipment
relied upon to respond to an event. The
proposed change does not impact the
condition or performance of SSCs relied
upon for accident mitigation or any safety
analysis assumptions. 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 this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously
published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice
in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Florida Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant,
Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 31,
2009.
Description of amendment request:
Revise Technical Specification 3.1.3.4,
related to requirements for Control
Element Assembly (CEA) drop time to
increase the available margin for CEA
drop time testing.
Date of publication of individual
notice in the Federal Register: June 1,
2009 (74 FR 26261).
Expiration date of individual notice:
July 1, 2009 (Comments) and July 31,
2009 (Hearing).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 at1 (800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No.
50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment:
September 12, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises Fermi 2 Plant
Operating License, Appendix A,
Technical Specifications (TS) to remove
statements relating to Nuclear Power
Plant Staff Working Hours in Section
5.2.2, ‘‘Unit Staff,’’ specifically deleting
subsection 5.2.2.e. The requested
amendment removes references to and
limits imposed by Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Generic Letter (GL) 82–12,
‘‘Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working
Hours’’ from the administrative controls
section of the Fermi 2 TS. The
regulations in 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart
I, supersede the guidelines in GL 82–12.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented no
later than October 1, 2009.
Amendment No.: 181.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
43: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 2, 2008 (73 FR
73353).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of application for amendment:
January 14, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment: (1) Deleted Technical
Specification (TS) surveillance
requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and revised SR
3.1.3.3, (2) removed the reference to SR
3.1.3.2 from Required Action A.2 of TS
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
3.1.3, ‘‘Control Rod OPERABILITY,’’ (3)
renumbered SRs 3.1.3.3 through 3.1.3.5
to reflect the deletion of SR 3.1.3.2, and
(4) revised Example 1.4–3 in Section
1.4, ‘‘Frequency,’’ to clarify the
applicability of the 1.25 surveillance
test interval extension. The changes are
in accordance with NRC-approved TS
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF–475, Revision 1, ‘‘Control Rod
Notch Testing Frequency and SRM
Insert Control Rod Action.’’
Date of issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 212.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
21: The amendment revised the
Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 10, 2009 (74 FR
6665).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No.
50–458, River Bend Station, Unit 1,
West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: January
25, 2008, as supplemented by letters
dated April 14 and 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ‘‘Main Turbine
Bypass System.’’ The change provides
an alternative to the existing Limiting
Condition for Operation for the Main
Turbine Bypass System (MTBS). The
revised TS will require that the MTBS
be operable or that the Average Planar
Linear Heat Generation Rate, the
Minimum Critical Power Ratio, and the
Linear Heat Generation Rate limits for
the inoperable MTBS be placed in effect
as specified in the Core Operating
Limits Report.
Date of issuance: June 24, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 163.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 11, 2008 (73 FR
13023). The supplemental letters dated
April 14 and 29, 2009, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:50 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 June 24, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendment:
June 21, 2007, as supplemented by letter
dated January 30, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: A
change is proposed to the technical
specifications (TSs) of Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, consistent with TS Task
Force (TSTF) change TSTF–423 to the
standard technical specifications (STSs)
for boiling-water reactor plants to allow,
for some systems, entry into hot
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to
repair equipment, if risk is assessed and
managed consistent with the program in
place for complying with the
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section
50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment
would modify the TS to risk-informed
requirements regarding selected
required action end states provided in
TSTF–423, Revision 0, ‘‘Technical
Specification End States, NEDC–32988–
A.’’
Date of issuance: June 26, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 12, 2008 (73 FR
8070). The January 30, 2009,
supplement, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC
staff’s initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St.
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida
Date of application for amendments:
June 30, 2008, as supplemented on
August 13, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The
proposed amendment modified
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34051
Technical Specification (TS)
requirements related to Refueling Water
Tank (RWT) minimum contained
volume of borated water. The proposed
changes would make permanent the
current administrative RWT minimum
level of 32.5 feet for both units.
Date of Issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective Date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 209 and 157.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 10, 2009 (74 FR
6665). The supplement dated August 13,
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 June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of application for amendments:
June 26, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated March 16 and May 1, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise the Facility
Operating Licenses by revising the
licensing basis loss-of-coolant accident
and main steam line break accident
radiological dose consequences as
currently described in the Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant Units 1 and 2
Updated Safety Analysis Report. The
amendments also make concomitant
amendments to Technical Specifications
(TSs) 3.3.5, 3.4.17, and 3.6.3, which are
necessary to implement the revised
analyses.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 191, 180.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 9, 2008 (73 FR
52420). The supplemental letters
contained clarifying information and
did not change the initial no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and did not expand the scope of the
original Federal Register notice.
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
34052
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 14, 2009 / Notices
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Southern California Edison Company,
et al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362,
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3, San Diego County,
California
Date of application for amendments:
June 27, 2008, as supplemented letters
dated August 13, 2008, and February 5,
2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
changes consist of revisions to the
Technical Specifications in support of
the replacement of the steam generators
(SGs) at San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The
changes reflect revised SG inspection
and repair requirements, and revised
peak containment post-accident
pressure resulting from installation of
the replacement SGs.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2009.
Effective date: Upon issuance; to be
implemented for Unit 2 prior to entry
into Mode 4 during the Unit 2 Cycle 16
refueling outage return-to-service, and
to be implemented for Unit 3 prior to
entry into Mode 4 during the Unit 3
Cycle 16 refueling outage return-toservice.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—220; Unit
3–213.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
10 and NPF–15: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 23, 2008 (73 FR
54867). The supplemental letters dated
August 13, 2008, and February 5, 2009,
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 June 25, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment:
June 3, 2008, as supplemented by letters
dated January 9 and 23, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.7.10,
3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10.
The amendment (1) deleted MODES 5
VerDate Nov<24>2008
20:04 Jul 13, 2009
Jkt 217001
and 6 from the Control Room
Emergency Ventilation System and its
actuation instrumentation in TS 3.7.10
and TS 3.3.7; (2) adopted U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF–36–A for
TSs 3.3.8, 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and
3.8.10; and (3) added a more restrictive
change to the Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) applicability for TSs
3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10 such that
these LCOs apply not only during
MODES 5 and 6, but also during the
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies
regardless of the MODE in which the
plant is operating.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 192.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58678). The supplemental letters dated
January 9 and 23, 2009, 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 June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
et al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2,
Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments:
June 9, 2008.
Brief description of amendments:
These amendments revise the Technical
Specifications to revise action
statements in TS 3.12 for insertion limit
and shutdown margin requirements,
revise the applicability for the
operability of the rod position
indication and bank demand position
indication systems, revise/add action
statements for rod position indication,
and add action statements for group step
demand counters.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 265, 264.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
change the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 29, 2009 (73 FR 43957).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of July 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–16347 Filed 7–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0307]
Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance,
Availability
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance and
availability of Regulatory Guide, RG
5.75.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bonnie Schnetzler, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone: (301) 415–
7883 or e-mail to
Bonnie.Schnetzler@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) is
issuing a new guide in the agency’s
‘‘Regulatory Guide’’ series. This series
was developed to describe and make
available to the public information such
as methods that are acceptable to the
NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the agency’s regulations,
techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or
postulated accidents, and data that the
staff needs in its review of applications
for permits and licenses.
RG 5.75, ‘‘Training and Qualification
of Security Personnel at Nuclear Power
Plants,’’ was issued with a temporary
identification as Draft Regulatory Guide,
DG–5015. This regulatory guide applies
to operating power reactors licensed in
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Part 50, ‘‘Domestic
Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities’’ (10 CFR Part 50), and with 10
CFR Part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications,
and Approvals for Nuclear Power
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34044-34052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16347]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0306]
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) 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 June 18, 2009, to July 1, 2009. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 30, 2009 (74 FR 31318).
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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this
[[Page 34045]]
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-
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
and Directives Branch (RDB), TWB-05-B01M, 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 faxed to the RDB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
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/requestor 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, 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.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
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 all adjudicatory 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 an exemption in accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@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
[[Page 34046]]
petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/requestor will
need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM to access the
Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-Filing
system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM is free and is
available at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit
a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory e-
filing system 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 Meta-System Help Desk, which is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding government holidays. The Meta-System Help Desk can be
contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, 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 request and/
or petition 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).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NBC'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, unless an NRC regulation or
other law requires submission of such information. 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 submissions.
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, 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 O1F21, 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. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
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 amendments request: May 13, 2009.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would incorporate
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 479-A, Revision 0,
``Changes to Reflect Revision of 10 CFR 50.55a,'' and TSTF 497-A,
Revision 0, ``Limit Inservice Testing Program SR 3.0.2 Application to
Frequencies of 2 Years or Less,'' approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on December 6, 2005 and October 4, 2006 respectively.
The proposed changes revise the Improved Standard Technical
Specification administrative controls of the Inservice Testing Program
to be consistent with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Section 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves
classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code
Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3.
The proposed change replaces references to ASME Section XI of the
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with references to the ASME Code for
Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants within Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.8. In TS 5.5.8.b, the proposed change applies
the extension of Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and
accelerated inservice testing frequencies of 2 years or less that were
not included in the frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
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. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace, within TS 5.5.8, references to
Section XI of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, with references
to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power
Plants (OM Code). In addition the proposed change
[[Page 34047]]
adds words to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the extension allowance of
the Surveillance Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated
inservice testing frequencies of two years or less that were not
included in the frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
The proposed change is administrative, does not affect any
accident initiators, does not affect the ability to successfully
respond to previously evaluated accidents and does not affect
radiological assumptions used in the evaluations. Thus, operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed change will not involve
an increase in the probability or 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. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will replace, within TS 5.5.8 references to
Section XI of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with references
to the ASME OM Code. In addition the proposed change also adds words
to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the extension allowance of Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated inservice testing
frequencies of two years or less that were not included in the
frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or involve a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally there is no change
in the types or increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be
released offsite and there is no increase in individual or
cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed change will replace, within TS 5.5.8 references to
Section XI of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code with references
to the ASME OM Code. In addition the proposed change also adds words
to TS 5.5.8.b which applies the extension allowance of Surveillance
Requirement 3.0.2 to other normal and accelerated inservice testing
frequencies of two years or less that were not included in the
frequencies of the table listed in TS 5.5.8.a.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the operating units or change the methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change incorporates
revisions to the ASME Code that results in a net improvement in the
measures for testing pumps and valves. The safety functions of the
applicable pumps and valves will be maintained.
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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street,
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Richard Guzman.
DTE Energy, Inc., Docket No. 50-16, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant,
Unit 1, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add
a license condition incorporating a site license termination plan (LTP)
for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 1 (Fermi-1). The proposed
license condition includes LTP change control criteria specifying when
changes to the LTP require prior Nuclear Regulatory Commission
approval. Since Fermi-1 is completely within the boundary of Unit 2,
the Fermi-1 property would become part of Unit 2 site upon successful
completion of license termination activities.
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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The change allows for the approval of the LTP and provides
the criteria for when changes to the LTP require prior NRC approval.
This change does not affect possible initiating events for the three
postulated accidents previously evaluated in the Fermi-1 Safety
Analysis Report (SAR), as updated, or alter the configuration or
operation of the facility. Safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, and limiting control systems are no longer applicable to
Fermi-1 in the permanently defueled condition, and are therefore not
considered further. The proposed change does not affect the
boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous
effluent limits, and has no impact on plant operations.
Therefore, the proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The safety analysis for the facility remains accurate as
described in the Fermi-1 SAR, as updated, Section 8.4, Postulated
Radiological Accidents. There are sections of the LTP that make
reference to the decommissioning activities still remaining (e.g.,
removal of large components, decontamination, etc.), however these
activities are performed in accordance with approved Fermi-1 work
authorizations and undergo 10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to
initiation. The plant conditions for which the postulated accidents
have been evaluated are still valid and no new accident scenarios,
failure mechanisms, or single failures are introduced by this
amendment. The system operating procedures are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes will 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?
No. There are no changes to the design or operation of the
facility resulting from this amendment. The proposed change does not
affect the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or
gaseous effluent limits, and has no impact on plant shutdown
operations. Accordingly, neither the postulated accident assumptions
in the Fermi-1 SAR, as updated, nor the basis of the Technical
Specifications are affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David Pettinari.
NRC Branch Chief: Andrew Persinko.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 3, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change will modify
Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1 to account for the Combustion
Engineering (CE) 16 x 16 Next Generation Fuel (NGF) and different U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed and approved Departure
from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) correlations. These new correlations will
be implemented in the safety analyses for the next fuel cycle of
[[Page 34048]]
operation consistent with NRC-approved methodologies.
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.
No changes to plant equipment or operating procedures are
required due to the change in the safety limit for DNBR [Departure
from Nucleate Boiling Ratio]. This change does not impact any of the
accident initiators. The analyses of the reload are performed using
NRC-approved methodologies to ensure the Specified Acceptable Fuel
Design Limits (SAFDLs), of which DNBR is one, are not violated. The
current DNBR setpoint continues to ensure automatic protective
action and is initiated to prevent exceeding the proposed DNBR
safety limit.
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 does not involve any plant modifications or
change in the way the plant is designed to function. The proposed
change is not associated with any accident precursor or initiator.
The proposed change supports the loading and use of Next Generation
Fuel (NGF) at Waterford 3 as previously approved by the NRC.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The use of the NRC-approved NGF WSSV-T correlation with the ABB-
NV correlation to establish a new bounding DNBR safety limit of
1.24, preserves the DNBR margin of safety at a 95/95 level. The Core
Protection Calculator (CPC) DNBR power adjustment addressable
constant BERR1 is calculated based on the WSSV-T and ABB-NV CHF
[Critical Heat Flux] correlations such that a CPC trip at a DNBR of
1.26 using the CE-1 CHF correlation ensures that the bounding DNBR
safety limit of 1.24 for the WSSV-T and ABB-NV CHF correlations will
not be violated during normal operation and AOOs [anticipated
operational occurrences] to at least a 95/95 probability/confidence
level.
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, 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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FPL Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: April 17, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to reflect a change
in the legal name of the Licensee from ``FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC''
to ``NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC.''
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?
Response: No.
This request is for administrative changes only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Therefore, this request will have no impact on 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 request is for administrative changes only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by previously
evaluated accidents will be created. Therefore, this request will
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?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. This request is for
administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment or accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the
proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish
safety limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will
not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
Therefore, these proposed changes will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Antonio Fernandez, Esquire, Senior Attorney,
FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Lois M. James.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 21, 2009 (TSC 09-02).
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) Section 6.8.4.k, ``Steam
Generator Program,'' for Unit 2 including associated TSs Bases 3/4.4.5,
``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' to allow the implementation of
SG tubing alternate repair criteria for axial indications in the
Westinghouse Electric Company explosive tube expansion region below the
top of the tubesheet and specify the W* distance for the SG cold legs.
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?
Response: No.
Of the various accidents previously evaluated, the proposed
changes only affects the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
evaluation and the postulated steam line break (SLB) accident
evaluation. Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions cause a
compressive axial load to act on the tube. Therefore, since the LOCA
tends to force the tube into the tubesheet rather than pull it out,
it is not a factor in this amendment request. Another faulted load
consideration is a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE); however, the
seismic analysis of Westinghouse 51 Series steam generators (SGs)
has shown that axial loading of the tubes is negligible during an
SSE.
TVA's [Tennessee Valley Authority's] amendment request allows
taking credit for
[[Page 34049]]
how the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the Westinghouse
Electric Company explosive tube expansion (WEXTEX) region by
precluding tube deformation beyond its initial expanded outside
diameter. For the SGTR and SLB events, the required structural
margins of the SG tubes will be maintained due to the presence of
the tubesheet. Tube rupture is precluded for axial cracks in the
WEXTEX region due to the constraint provided by the tubesheet.
Therefore, the normal operating 3[Delta]P margin and the postulated
accident 1.43[Delta]P margin against burst are maintained.
The W* length supplies the necessary resistive force to preclude
pullout loads under both normal operating and accident conditions.
The contact pressure results from the WEXTEX process, thermal
expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from the
differential pressure between the primary and secondary side.
Therefore, the proposed change results in no significant increase in
the probability or the occurrence of an SGTR or SLB accident.
The proposed changes do not affect other systems, structures,
components or operational features. Therefore, based on the above
evaluation, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of an SGTR event are primarily affected by the
primary-to-secondary flow rate and the time duration of the primary-
to-secondary flow during the event. Primary-to-secondary flow rate
through a postulated ruptured tube (i.e., complete severance of a
single SG tube) is not affected by the proposed change since the
flow rate is based on the inside diameter of a SG tube and the
pressure differential. TVA's amendment request does not change
either of these. The duration of primary-to-secondary leakage is
based on the time required for an operator to determine that an SGTR
has occurred, the time to identify and isolate the faulty SG, and
ensure termination of radioactive release to the atmosphere from the
faulty SG. TVA's amendment request does not affect the duration of
the primary-to-secondary leakage because it does not change the
control room indicators with which an operator would determine that
an SGTR has occurred. The consequences of an SGTR are secondarily
affected by primary-to-secondary leakage, which could occur due to
axial cracks remaining in service in the WEXTEX region in a non-
faulted SG. During a SGTR, the primary-to-secondary differential
pressure is less than or equal to the normal operating differential
pressure; therefore, the primary-to-secondary leakage due to axial
cracks in the WEXTEX region of a non-faulted SG during a SGTR would
be less than or equal to the primary-to-secondary leakage
experienced during normal operation. Primary-to-secondary leakage is
considered in the calculation determining the consequences of a SGTR
and the value is bounding.
The postulated SLB has the greatest primary-to-secondary
pressure differential, and therefore could experience the greatest
primary-to-secondary leakage. TVA's amendment request allows axial
cracks to remain in service in the WEXTEX region, which have the
possibility of primary-to-secondary leakage during a postulated SLB
accident. However, the primary-to-secondary leakage would be limited
by the amount the crack face can open (compared to a similar free-
span axial crack) and by the restriction resulting from the tube to
tubesheet contact pressure which create a restricted leakage path
from the upper tip of the crack to the top of the WEXTEX expansion.
TVA's amendment request requires the aggregate leakage, (i.e., the
combined leakage for the tubes with axial cracks in the WEXTEX
region) plus the combined leakage developed by other alternate
repair criteria (ARC), to remain below the maximum allowable SLB
primary-to-secondary leakage rate limit such that the doses are
maintained to less than a fraction of the 10 CFR 100 limits and also
less than the General Design Criteria (GDC)-19 limits.
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.
TVA's amendment request does not introduce any physical changes
to the Sequoyah Unit 2 SGs. TVA's amendment request takes credit for
how the tubesheet enhances the SG tube integrity in the WEXTEX
region by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial expanded
outside diameter and allows axial cracks in the WEXTEX region to
remain in service if prescribed criteria are met. Removal of the
existing primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) axial at
dented tube support plate ARC incorporates the more conservative TS
limit for SG tube plugging. A failure to meet SG tube integrity
results in an SGTR. Because the circumferential cracks detected
within the WEXTEX region are required to be plugged, it is highly
unlikely that a W* tube would fail as a result of a circumferential
defect. Therefore, a tube severance which would strike neighboring
tubes and create a multiple tube rupture is not credible.
The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment or any
change to existing equipment. No new effects on existing equipment
are created.
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.
The amendment request maintains the structural margins of the SG
tubes for both normal and accident conditions that are required by
Regulatory Guide 1.121.
For primarily axially oriented cracking located within the
tubesheet, tube burst is precluded because of the presence of the
tubesheet. WCAP-14797 defines a length, W*, of degradation free
expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube
pullout due to the pressure induced forces (with applicable safety
factor applied). Application of the W* criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant
conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for
large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the W*
criteria.
Plugging of the SG tubes reduces the reactor coolant flow margin
for core cooling. Implementation of the proposed changes is expected
to result in plugging of fewer tubes than with the current criteria.
Thus, implementation of the proposed changes will maintain the
margin of flow that may have otherwise been reduced by tube
plugging.
It is concluded that the proposed changes do not result in a
significant reduction of margin with respect to plant safety as
defined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report or TSs.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises
Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.7-1 Operator Action 3.b and
provides direction if the less-than-required-minimum-operable-channels-
condition for the nuclear flux intermediate range occurs between 7% and
11% of rated power.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change revises TS Table 3.7-1 Operator Action
3.b and provides direction if the less-than-required-minimum-
operable-channels-condition for the nuclear flux intermediate range
occurs between 7% and 11% of rated power. Required action between 7%
and 11% of rated power is currently not addressed in the Operator
Action 3.b. The proposed TS change does not involve a physical
change to any structures, systems, or components (SSCs) at Surry
Power Station; nor does it change any of the previously evaluated
accidents in the
[[Page 34050]]
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Thus, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
No. The proposed change revises TS Table 3.7-1 Operator Action
3.b, and provides required action between 7% and 11% of rated power,
which is currently not addressed in the Operator Action 3.b. The
proposed change does not involve a physical change to any SSCs, and
there is no impact on their design function. The proposed change
does not affect initiators of analyzed events. Therefore, the
proposed change does not introduce any new failures that could
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. The proposed change provides required action for
inoperability of nuclear flux intermediate range instrumentation
between 7% and 11% of rated power in TS Table 3.7-1 Operator Action
3.b. Margin of safety is established through the design of plant
SSCs, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the
establishment of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied
upon to respond to an event. The proposed change does not impact the
condition or performance of SSCs relied upon for accident mitigation
or any safety analysis assumptions. 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
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2009.
Description of amendment request: Revise Technical Specification
3.1.3.4, related to requirements for Control Element Assembly (CEA)
drop time to increase the available margin for CEA drop time testing.
Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register:
June 1, 2009 (74 FR 26261).
Expiration date of individual notice: July 1, 2009 (Comments) and
July 31, 2009 (Hearing).
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 at1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: September 12, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Fermi 2 Plant
Operating License, Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS) to remove
statements relating to Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours in
Section 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,'' specifically deleting subsection
5.2.2.e. The requested amendment removes references to and limits
imposed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Letter (GL) 82-12,
``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours'' from the administrative
controls section of the Fermi 2 TS. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, supersede the guidelines in GL 82-12.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than October 1, 2009.
Amendment No.: 181.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (73 FR
73353).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: January 14, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment: (1) Deleted
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 and
revised SR 3.1.3.3, (2) removed the reference to SR 3.1.3.2 from
Required Action A.2 of TS
[[Page 34051]]
3.1.3, ``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' (3) renumbered SRs 3.1.3.3 through
3.1.3.5 to reflect the deletion of SR 3.1.3.2, and (4) revised Example
1.4-3 in Section 1.4, ``Frequency,'' to clarify the applicability of
the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension. The changes are in
accordance with NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-
475, Revision 1, ``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM Insert
Control Rod Action.''
Date of issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 212.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6665).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: January 25, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated April 14 and 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Main Turbine Bypass System.'' The change
provides an alternative to the existing Limiting Condition for
Operation for the Main Turbine Bypass System (MTBS). The revised TS
will require that the MTBS be operable or that the Average Planar
Linear Heat Generation Rate, the Minimum Critical Power Ratio, and the
Linear Heat Generation Rate limits for the inoperable MTBS be placed in
effect as specified in the Core Operating Limits Report.
Date of issuance: June 24, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 163.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (73 FR
13023). The supplemental letters dated April 14 and 29, 2009, 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 June 24, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: June 21, 2007, as supplemented
by letter dated January 30, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: A change is proposed to the
technical specifications (TSs) of Clinton Power Station, Unit 1,
consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-423 to the standard
technical specifications (STSs) for boiling-water reactor plants to
allow, for some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than cold
shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed
consistent with the program in place for complying with the
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
Section 50.65(a)(4). The proposed amendment would modify the TS to
risk-informed requirements regarding selected required action end
states provided in TSTF-423, Revision 0, ``Technical Specification End
States, NEDC-32988-A.''
Date of issuance: June 26, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (73
FR 8070). The January 30, 2009, supplement, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: June 30, 2008, as supplemented
on August 13, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment modified
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Refueling Water
Tank (RWT) minimum contained volume of borated water. The proposed
changes would make permanent the current administrative RWT minimum
level of 32.5 feet for both units.
Date of Issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 209 and 157.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (74
FR 6665). The supplement dated August 13, 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 June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: June 26, 2008, as supplemented
by letters dated March 16 and May 1, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Facility
Operating Licenses by revising the licensing basis loss-of-coolant
accident and main steam line break accident radiological dose
consequences as currently described in the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 Updated Safety Analysis Report. The
amendments also make concomitant amendments to Technical Specifications
(TSs) 3.3.5, 3.4.17, and 3.6.3, which are necessary to implement the
revised analyses.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 191, 180.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (73
FR 52420). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information
and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
[[Page 34052]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of application for amendments: June 27, 2008, as supplemented
letters dated August 13, 2008, and February 5, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The changes consist of revisions
to the Technical Specifications in support of the replacement of the
steam generators (SGs) at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The changes reflect revised SG inspection and
repair requirements, and revised peak containment post-accident
pressure resulting from installation of the replacement SGs.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2009.
Effective date: Upon issuance; to be implemented for Unit 2 prior
to entry into Mode 4 during the Unit 2 Cycle 16 refueling outage
return-to-service, and to be implemented for Unit 3 prior to entry into
Mode 4 during the Unit 3 Cycle 16 refueling outage return-to-service.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2--220; Unit 3-213.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 23, 2008 (73
FR 54867). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2008, and February
5, 2009, 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 June 25, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: June 3, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated January 9 and 23, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.7.10, 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8,
and 3.8.10. The amendment (1) deleted MODES 5 and 6 from the Control
Room Emergency Ventilation System and its actuation instrumentation in
TS 3.7.10 and TS 3.3.7; (2) adopted U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF-36-A for TSs 3.3.8, 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and
3.8.10; and (3) added a more restrictive change to the Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) applicability for TSs 3.8.2, 3.8.5,
3.8.8, and 3.8.10 such that these LCOs apply not only during MODES 5
and 6, but also during the movement of irradiated fuel assemblies
regardless of the MODE in which the plant is operating.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 192.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (73 FR
58678). The supplemental letters dated January 9 and 23, 2009, 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 June 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: June 9, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to revise action statements in TS 3.12 for
insertion limit and shutdown margin requirements, revise the
applicability for the operability of the rod position indication and
bank demand position indication systems, revise/add action statements
for rod position indication, and add action statements for group step
demand counters.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 265, 264.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 29, 2009 (73 FR
43957).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-16347 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P