Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 66381-66387 [E9-29545]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
consideration of individual applications
may require a discussion of matters
such as an individual artist’s abilities,
reputation among colleagues, or
professional background and
performance, I have determined to
reserve the right to close limited
portions of Council meetings if such
information is to be discussed. The
purpose of the closure is to protect
information of a personal nature where
disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy. Closure for this purpose is
authorized by subsection (c)(6) of
section 552b of Title 5, United States
Code.
Additionally, the Council will
consider prospective nominees for the
National Medal of Arts award in order
to advise the President of the United
States in his final selection of National
Medal of Arts recipients. During these
sessions, similar information of a
personal nature will be discussed. As
with applications for financial
assistance, disclosure of this
information about individuals who are
under consideration for the award
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Therefore, in light of the above, I have
determined that those portions of
Council meetings devoted to
consideration of prospective nominees
for the National Medal of Arts award
may be closed to the public. Closure for
these purposes is authorized by
subsections (c)(6) of section 552b of
Title 5, United States Code.
All other portions of the meetings of
the National Council on the Arts shall
be open to the public unless the
Chairperson of the National Endowment
for the Arts or a designee determines
otherwise in accordance with section
10(d) of the Act.
Further, in accordance with the
FACA, the Panel Coordinator shall be
responsible for publication in the
Federal Register of a notice of all
advisory committee meetings including
the intent to close any portion of the
Council meeting. Such notice shall be
published in advance of the meetings
and contain:
1. Name of the committee and its
purposes;
2. Date and time of the meeting, and,
if the meeting is open to the public, its
location and agenda; and
3. A statement that the meeting is
open to the public, or, if the meeting or
any portion thereof is not to be open to
the public, a statement to that effect.
A record shall be maintained of any
closed portion of the Council meeting.
The Director of Council Operations is
designated as the person from whom
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
lists of committee members may be
obtained and from whom minutes of
open meetings or open portions thereof
may be requested. On November 10,
2009, Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Arts Rocco
Landesman approved the determination
to close the meetings.
Dated: December 10, 2009.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–29788 Filed 12–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537–01–P
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the Arts;
Determination of the Chairperson of
the National Endowment for the Arts
Regarding Closure of Portions of
Meetings of Advisory Committees
(Advisory Panels)
Section 20 U.S.C. 959(c) of the
National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended (20
U.S.C. 951 et seq.) requires the
Chairperson of the Endowment to
utilize advisory panels to review
applications for financial assistance to
the National Endowment for the Arts
and make recommendations to the
Chairperson.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), as amended (Pub. L. 92–463),
governs the formation, use, conduct,
management, and accessibility to the
public of committees formed to advise
and assist the Federal Government.
Section 10 of that Act directs meetings
of advisory committees to be open to the
public, except where the head of the
agency to which the advisory committee
reports determines in writing that a
portion of a meeting may be closed to
the public consistent with subsection (c)
of section 552b of Title 5, United States
Code (the Government in the Sunshine
Act).
It is the policy of the National
Endowment for the Arts to make the
fullest possible disclosure of records to
the public, limited only by obligations
of confidentiality and administrative
necessity. In recognition that the
Endowment is required to consider the
artistic excellence and artistic merit of
applications for financial assistance and
that consideration of individual
applications may require a discussion of
matters such as an individual artist’s
abilities, reputation among colleagues,
or professional background and
performance, I have determined to
reserve the right to close the portions of
advisory committee meetings involving
the review, discussion, evaluation, and
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66381
ranking of grant applications. The
purpose of the closure is to protect
information of a personal nature where
disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy. Closure for this purpose is
authorized by subsection (c)(6) of
section 552b of Title 5, United States
Code.
All other portions of the meetings of
these advisory committees shall be open
to the public unless the Chairperson of
the National Endowment for the Arts or
a designee determines otherwise in
accordance with section 10(d) of the
Act.
Further, in accordance with FACA,
the Panel Coordinator shall be
responsible for publication in the
Federal Register of a notice of all
advisory committee meetings. Such
notice shall be published in advance of
the meetings and contain:
1. Name of the committee and its
purposes;
2. Date and time of the meeting, and,
if the meeting is open to the public, its
location and agenda; and
3. A statement that the meeting is
open to the public, or, if the meeting or
any portion thereof is not to be open to
the public, a statement to that effect.
A record shall be maintained of any
closed portions of panel meetings.
The Panel Coordinator is designated
as the person from whom lists of
committee members may be obtained
and from whom minutes of open
meetings or open portions thereof may
be requested. On November 10, 2009,
Chairman of the National Endowment
for the Arts Rocco Landesman approved
the determination to close the meetings.
Dated: December 10, 2009.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–29790 Filed 12–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0553]
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
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
66382
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
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 November
18, 2009 to December 2, 2009. The last
biweekly notice was published on
December 1, 2009 (74 FR 62831).
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
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
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
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling 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
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (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 (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
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. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through EIE, users will be
required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further
information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant 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 documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
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
E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66383
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. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, or the 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
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from
December 15, 2009. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be
granted or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the
factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
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
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
66384
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
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.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.
Docket No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: August
24, 2009.
Description of amendment request:
The licensee proposed to convert the
Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) current
Technical Specifications (CTS) to the
Improved Technical Specifications (ITS)
format as outlined in NUREG–1431,
Rev. 3.0, ‘‘Standard Technical
Specifications, Westinghouse Plants.’’
Some of the proposed changes involve
reformatting, renumbering, and
rewording of the CTS with no change in
intent. These changes, since they do not
involve technical changes to the CTS,
are administrative. This type of change
is connected with the movement of
requirements, or with the modification
of wording that does not affect the
technical content of the CTS. These
changes also include non-technical
modifications of requirements to
conform to TSTF–GG–05–01, ‘‘Writer’s
Guide for Plant-Specific Improved
Standard Technical Specifications,’’ or
provide consistency with the Improved
Standard Technical Specifications in
NUREG–1431. Administrative changes
are not intended to add, delete, or
relocate any technical requirements of
the CTS.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves
reformatting, renumbering, and rewording
the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and
rewording process involves no technical
changes to the CTS. As such, this change is
administrative in nature and does not affect
initiators of analyzed events or assumed
mitigation of accident or transient events.
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?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
[nor does it change] methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed change
will not impose any new or eliminate any old
requirements. 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 proposed change will not reduce a
margin of safety because it has no effect on
any safety analyses assumptions. This change
is administrative in nature. 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: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., 120
Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No.
50–382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: October
22, 2009.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change will modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs), to clarify
Table 2.2–1, Notes ‘‘1’’ and ‘‘5’’; and
Table 3.3–1, Notes ‘‘a’’ and ‘‘c’’, Table
3.3–1 Action 2, and Table 3.3–1 Action
3 which have resulted in Plant
Protection System redundancy issues
with respect to verbatim compliance.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the table
notations for the 10¥4% [percent] Bistable in
Technical Specifications (TS) TS Table 2.2–
1 Notes ‘‘1’’ and ‘‘5’’, TS Table 3.3–1 Notes
‘‘a’’ and ‘‘c’’, TS Table 3.3–1 Action 2, and
TS Table 3.3–1 Action 3. The proposed
changes to these trip bypass removal
functions do not adversely impact any
system, structure, or component design or
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
operation in a manner that would result in
a change in the frequency or occurrence of
accident initiation. The reactor trip bypass
removal functions are not accident initiators.
System connections and the trip setpoints
themselves are not affected by trip bypass
removal setpoint variations.
As previously approved in TS Amendment
145 [issued September 24, 1998], the
hysteresis for the 10¥4% Bistable is small,
there is a negligible impact on the CEA
[control element assembly] withdrawal
analyses. Revised analyses, accounting for
slightly different bypass removal power
levels caused by the bistable hysteresis,
would result in negligible changes to the
calculated peak power and heat flux for the
pertinent CEA withdrawal events. Therefore,
the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated will not significantly change.
With respect to the clarification proposed
for the THERMAL POWER input to the
bypass capability of the affected reactor trips
for the 10¥4% Bistable, the proposed change
does not alter the manner of operation of the
operating bypasses and automatic bypass
removals. This change corrects a discrepancy
between the formal definition of this
terminology and its use in the context of the
applicable Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change will not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The trip bypass removal functions in
question protect against possible reactivity
events. The power, criticality levels, and
possible bank withdrawals associated with
these trip functions have already been
evaluated. Therefore, all pertinent reactivity
events have previously been considered.
Slight differences in the power level at which
the automatic trip bypass removal occurs can
not cause a different kind of accident.
The proposed changes to TS Table 2.2–1
Notes ‘‘1’’ and ‘‘5’’, TS Table 3.3–1 *Notes
‘‘a’’ and ‘‘c’’, TS Table 3.3–1 Action 2, and
TS Table 3.3–1 Action 3 do not alter any
plant system, structure, or component.
Furthermore, these changes do not reduce the
capability of any safety-related equipment to
mitigate AOOs [anticipated operational
occurrences].
In addition, no new or different accidents
result from proposed clarifications to the
operating bypasses and automatic bypass
removals of the affected reactor trips. The
results of previously performed accident
analyses remain valid. Therefore, this change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The safety function associated with the
CPC [core protection calculators] and HLP
[high logarithmic power] trip functions are
maintained. Since the hysteresis for the
10¥4% Bistable is small, there is a negligible
impact on the CEA withdrawal analyses.
Calculated peak power and heat flux are not
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
significantly changed as a result of the
bistable hysteresis. All acceptance criteria are
still met for these events. There is no change
to any margin of safety as a result of this
change.
Clarification of the THERMAL POWER
input to the operating bypasses and
automatic bypass removals of the 10¥4%
Bistable does not alter the operation of the
operating bypasses and automatic bypass
removals of the affected reactor trips. This
change corrects a discrepancy between the
formal definition of this terminology and its
use in the context of the applicable Technical
Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change will not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s
analysis and, based on this review, it appears
that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company,
et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2 (BVPS–1 and 2), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The
proposed amendment would: (1) Modify
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.2.9, which
verifies that the Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Response Times are within
the limits for the recirculation spray pumps,
(2) revise Section 1.4 of the TSs to add
clarification to Notes associated with SRs in
accordance with Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler, TSTF 475–A, Revision
1, ‘‘Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency
and SRM [Source Range Monitor] Insert
Control Rod Action,’’ (3) revise the BVPS–1
operating license to remove a License
Condition for recommended inspections of
steam generator repairs, and (4) revise the
BVPS–2 operating license to remove an
exemption to 10 CFR 70.24.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination: As required by
10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Operating
License pages and Example 1.4–1 are
editorial changes that do not have any effect
on equipment or plant operation. Therefore,
these proposed changes will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The elimination of the requirement to
verify a response time for the recirculation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
spray pumps will not affect the operation of
the pumps and will not impact the applicable
safety analyses because the potential
variation in the measurable response time
has an insignificant effect on the results of
the applicable safety analyses. The
recirculation spray system is an accident
mitigation system, so no new accident
initiators are created by the elimination of
the subject surveillance requirement. Thus
eliminating the surveillance requirement will
not result in a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated. The elimination of the subject
surveillance requirement will not impact the
accident mitigation function of the
recirculation spray system because the pump
response time is not a critical safety analyses
assumption due to the fact that the potential
variation in the measurable response time
has an insignificant effect on the analysis.
Since the post-accident performance of the
recirculation spray system is not changed by
eliminating the requirement to verify a
response time for the pumps, the proposed
change will not involve a significant increase
in consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the elimination of the
surveillance requirement will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Operating
License pages and Example 1.4–1 are
editorial changes that do not have any effect
on equipment or plant operation. Therefore,
these proposed changes will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The elimination of the surveillance
requirement to verify a response time for the
recirculation spray pumps will not affect the
operation of the pumps. The pumps will
continue to perform in the same manner after
the elimination of the surveillance
requirement as they do with the surveillance
requirement. Therefore, the elimination of
the surveillance requirement will not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed changes to the Operating
License pages and Example 1.4–1 are
editorial changes that do not have any effect
on equipment or plant operation. Therefore,
these proposed changes will not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The elimination of the surveillance
requirement to verify a response time for the
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66385
recirculation spray pumps is consistent with
the applicable safety analysis since a
response time for the pumps is not an
analysis assumption. As a result the existing
margin of safety is not impacted. Therefore,
the elimination of the surveillance
requirement will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) staff has reviewed the licensee’s
analysis and, based on this review, it
appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the
NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W.
Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
No. 50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October
30, 2009.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Watt Bar Nuclear Plan, Unit 1 license by
adding an exception to Operating
License Condition 2.F regarding the
provisions of the Fire Protection
Program.
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:
A. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the
design of the automatic total-flooding CO2
[carbon dioxide] suppression system, the
operational characteristics or function of the
CO2 suppression system, the interfaces
between the CO2 suppression system and
other plant systems, or the reliability of the
CO2 suppression system. The CO2
suppression system is not considered an
initiator of any Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident or
transient previously evaluated. The CO2
suppression system is designed to extinguish
a fire or control and minimize the effects of
a fire until the fire brigade can respond and
extinguish it.
The consequences of previously evaluated
accidents and transients will not be
significantly affected by the revised
requirements for CO2 concentration in the
Auxiliary Instrument Room because the CO2
suppression system is not credited in the
accident analyses. Although the function of
the system is to extinguish a fire or control
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
66386
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
and minimize the effects of a fire until the
fire brigade can respond and extinguish it,
this function does not mitigate accidents or
transients. Thus, the consequences of
accidents or transients previously evaluated
are not affected by the proposed change in
the required CO2 concentration for the
Auxiliary Instrument Room.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
B. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
change in the design, configuration, or
method of operation of the plant. The
proposed change will not alter the manner in
which equipment operation is initiated, nor
will the functional demands on credited
equipment be changed. The capability for fire
suppression and extinguishment will not be
changed. The proposed change does not
affect the interaction of the CO2 suppression
system with any system whose failure or
malfunction can initiate an accident. As
such, no new failure modes are being
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
C. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the
plant design, including instrument setpoints,
nor does it alter the assumptions contained
in the safety analyses. The CO2 suppression
system is designed for fire suppression and
extinguishment and is not assumed or
credited for accident mitigation. Although
the change does reduce a parameter (CO2
concentration) specified in the license, the
proposed change does not impact the
redundancy or availability of equipment
required for accident mitigation, or the
ability of the plant to cope with design basis
accident events.
Therefore, the 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: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A,
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Florida Power and Light Company,
Docket No. 50–251, Turkey Point Plant,
Unit 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendment:
September 1, 2009, supplemented by
letters dated October 28, 29, and 31,
November 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The
request would change the
implementation date of approved
license amendment 229 for Unit 4,
dated July 17, 2007, from ‘‘prior to the
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
end of Turkey Point 4 cycle 24’’ to ‘‘no
later than February 28, 2011, for Unit 4
only.’’
Date of issuance: November 13, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.
Amendment No.: 237.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–41: Amendment revised the
license.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 15, 2009 (74 FR
47278). The supplements dated October
28, 29, and 31, November 5, 6, 12, and
13, 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 November 13,
2009.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of application for amendments:
April 24, 2009 (TS–464).
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes revised the
Technical Specifications (TS) Bases
sections 3.1.6, ‘‘Rod Pattern Control,’’
and 3.3.2.1, ‘‘Control Rod Block
Instrumentation’’ to allow the Browns
Ferry units to reference in the improved
control rod banked position withdrawal
sequence (BPWS) when performing a
reactor shutdown. In addition, the
proposed changes added a footnote to
TS Table 3.3.2.1–1, ‘‘Control Rod Block
Instrumentation’’. The proposed
changes are consistent with Nuclear
Regulatory Commission approved
Industry Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–
476, Revision 1, ‘‘Improved BPWS
Control Rod Insertion Process (NEDO–
33091).’’
Date of issuance: November 19, 2009.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 276, 303, and 262.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68:
Amendments revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 28, 2009 (74 FR 37249).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 19,
2009.
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 15, 2009 / Notices
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day
of December 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–29545 Filed 12–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0485]
Development of NRC’s Safety Culture
Policy: Public Workshops; Request for
Nomination of Participants in Round
Table Discussions and Stakeholder
Participation
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of public workshops;
request for nomination of participants in
round table discussions.
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft
policy statement on safety culture to
include the unique aspects of nuclear
safety and security, and to note
expectations that the policy applies to
individuals and organizations
performing or overseeing NRC-regulated
activities. The NRC is conducting public
workshops to solicit input relating to
the development of the safety culture
policy statement. These workshops will
be composed of panel discussions.
Attendees’ participation and feedback
on the discussions will also be solicited
during the workshops. In addition to
announcing the public workshops, the
other purpose of this notice is to request
the names of individuals desiring to
participate in the panel discussion
portion of the workshops. Nominations
and requests to participate in the panel
discussions are requested by January 15,
2010, to allow for their consideration.
The NRC staff is holding workshops
to support an overarching goal of forging
a consensus around the objectives,
strategies, activities and measures that
enhance safety culture for NRCregulated activities. Specifics include
the development of the safety culture
common terminology effort that
comprises: (1) Development of a
common safety culture definition; and
(2) development of high-level
description/traits of areas important to
safety culture. These workshops aim to
develop these concepts for
incorporation into our draft final policy
statement and will be considered when
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:23 Dec 14, 2009
Jkt 220001
revising our oversight programs for
NRC-regulated nuclear industries. The
tentative dates for the planned public
workshops are February 2–4, 2010, and
April 13–15, 2010, and October 27–28,
2010, at or near NRC headquarters in
Rockville, MD. Please check the NRC
Web site (https://www.nrc.gov/publicinvolve/public-meetings/index.cfm and/
or https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/
regulatory/enforcement/safetyculture.html) for any updates to the
workshop schedules and/or information
regarding this effort.
In addition to this Federal Register
Notice, the NRC has issued a separate
Federal Register Notice (November 6,
2009, 74 FR 57525, ADAMS Number
ML093030375), which provides
individuals and organizations with an
interest in nuclear safety, an
opportunity to comment on the draft
safety culture policy statement in the
event they are unable to attend the
workshops referenced in this Federal
Register Notice.
DATES: Public Workshop Dates:
Workshop meeting notices will be
available on the NRC Public Meeting
Schedule Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/publicmeetings/index.cfm at least ten days
prior to each workshop. The meeting
notices on the NRC Public Meeting
Schedule Web site will provide
information on how those unable to
participate in person may do so via
teleconference and/or possibly through
the Internet.
ADDRESSES: Individuals or organizations
with an interest in nuclear safety are
encouraged to submit names of
individuals who will represent each
industry group, stakeholder, union, and
so forth, or themselves in the panel
discussion portion of the workshops, to
Alex Sapountzis or Maria Schwartz by
mail to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Enforcement,
Concerns Resolution Branch, Mail Stop
O–4 A15A, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by e-mail to
Alexander.Sapountzis@nrc.gov or
Maria.Schwartz@nrc.gov.
Public Workshops: The public
workshops will be held at or near the
NRC Headquarters building located at
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852. Because on-street parking is
extremely limited, the most convenient
transportation to the workshop venue, if
held at NRC headquarters, is via Metro’s
Red Line to the White Flint Stop, which
is directly across the street from NRC
Headquarters. Please allow time to
register with building security upon
entering the building. Those unable to
travel and attend in person may
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66387
participate by teleconference and/or
possibly through the internet. The
public meeting notice will provide
specific details regarding this option.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex
Sapountzis, telephone (301) 415–7822
or by e-mail to
Alexander.Sapountzis@nrc.gov; or
Maria Schwartz, telephone (301) 415–
1888 or by e-mail to
Maria.Schwartz@nrc.gov. Both of these
individuals can also be contacted by
mail at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Enforcement,
Concerns Resolution Branch, Mail Stop
O–4 A15A, Washington, DC 20555–
0001. Prior to each workshop, attendees
are requested to register with one of the
contacts listed in the workshop meeting
notice (i.e., the notice serves to
announce the date, time and location of
the workshop), so that sufficient
accommodations can be made for their
participation. Please let the contact
know if special services, such as
services for the hearing impaired, are
necessary.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
(1) Purpose of the Public Workshops
The goal of these workshops is to
develop concepts that will be
incorporated into our draft final policy
statement and to consider incorporating
these views into our oversight programs
for NRC-regulated nuclear industries, as
appropriate. Furthermore, the NRC is
working with the Agreement States to
facilitate their consideration and
support of effort in their oversight
programs for materials licensees.
The development of the safety culture
common terminology concepts
(definition and high-level description/
traits of areas important to safety
culture) will be used in the
development of a final safety culture
policy statement to facilitate
transparency and common
understanding of safety culture-related
concepts by interested stakeholders. The
staff expects that the final safety culture
policy will set forth expectations for
fostering a strong safety culture, will
pertain to all levels of an organization,
and will apply to all individuals
performing or overseeing NRC-regulated
activities. The NRC is working towards
increasing the attention that is given to
safety culture as part of its efforts to
ensure the safe and secure use of
radioactive material within NRC’s
jurisdiction. Because the development
of a robust safety culture is important
for all NRC-regulated nuclear industries,
the NRC is seeking involvement in this
effort by individuals and organizations
with an interest in nuclear safety. The
E:\FR\FM\15DEN1.SGM
15DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66381-66387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29545]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0553]
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
[[Page 66382]]
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 November 18, 2009 to December 2, 2009. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 1, 2009 (74 FR 62831).
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 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 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
[[Page 66383]]
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 (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). 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 participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (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
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
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. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant 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
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 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
E-Filing 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
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. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, or the 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 submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from December 15, 2009. Non-timely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding officer that the petition or
request should be granted or the contentions should be admitted, based
on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(viii).
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
[[Page 66384]]
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.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: August 24, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to convert
the Kewaunee Power Station (KPS) current Technical Specifications (CTS)
to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) format as outlined in
NUREG-1431, Rev. 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse
Plants.'' Some of the proposed changes involve reformatting,
renumbering, and rewording of the CTS with no change in intent. These
changes, since they do not involve technical changes to the CTS, are
administrative. This type of change is connected with the movement of
requirements, or with the modification of wording that does not affect
the technical content of the CTS. These changes also include non-
technical modifications of requirements to conform to TSTF-GG-05-01,
``Writer's Guide for Plant-Specific Improved Standard Technical
Specifications,'' or provide consistency with the Improved Standard
Technical Specifications in NUREG-1431. Administrative changes are not
intended to add, delete, or relocate any technical requirements of the
CTS.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves reformatting, renumbering, and
rewording the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording
process involves no technical changes to the CTS. As such, this
change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events. 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 a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
[nor does it change] methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change will not impose any new or eliminate any old
requirements. 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 proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because
it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. This change is
administrative in nature. 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: October 22, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change will modify
the Technical Specifications (TSs), to clarify Table 2.2-1, Notes ``1''
and ``5''; and Table 3.3-1, Notes ``a'' and ``c'', Table 3.3-1 Action
2, and Table 3.3-1 Action 3 which have resulted in Plant Protection
System redundancy issues with respect to verbatim compliance.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the table notations for the
10-4% [percent] Bistable in Technical Specifications (TS)
TS Table 2.2-1 Notes ``1'' and ``5'', TS Table 3.3-1 Notes ``a'' and
``c'', TS Table 3.3-1 Action 2, and TS Table 3.3-1 Action 3. The
proposed changes to these trip bypass removal functions do not
adversely impact any system, structure, or component design or
operation in a manner that would result in a change in the frequency
or occurrence of accident initiation. The reactor trip bypass
removal functions are not accident initiators. System connections
and the trip setpoints themselves are not affected by trip bypass
removal setpoint variations.
As previously approved in TS Amendment 145 [issued September 24,
1998], the hysteresis for the 10-4% Bistable is small,
there is a negligible impact on the CEA [control element assembly]
withdrawal analyses. Revised analyses, accounting for slightly
different bypass removal power levels caused by the bistable
hysteresis, would result in negligible changes to the calculated
peak power and heat flux for the pertinent CEA withdrawal events.
Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
will not significantly change.
With respect to the clarification proposed for the THERMAL POWER
input to the bypass capability of the affected reactor trips for the
10-4% Bistable, the proposed change does not alter the
manner of operation of the operating bypasses and automatic bypass
removals. This change corrects a discrepancy between the formal
definition of this terminology and its use in the context of the
applicable Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The trip bypass removal functions in question protect against
possible reactivity events. The power, criticality levels, and
possible bank withdrawals associated with these trip functions have
already been evaluated. Therefore, all pertinent reactivity events
have previously been considered. Slight differences in the power
level at which the automatic trip bypass removal occurs can not
cause a different kind of accident.
The proposed changes to TS Table 2.2-1 Notes ``1'' and ``5'', TS
Table 3.3-1 *Notes ``a'' and ``c'', TS Table 3.3-1 Action 2, and TS
Table 3.3-1 Action 3 do not alter any plant system, structure, or
component. Furthermore, these changes do not reduce the capability
of any safety-related equipment to mitigate AOOs [anticipated
operational occurrences].
In addition, no new or different accidents result from proposed
clarifications to the operating bypasses and automatic bypass
removals of the affected reactor trips. The results of previously
performed accident analyses remain valid. Therefore, this change
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The safety function associated with the CPC [core protection
calculators] and HLP [high logarithmic power] trip functions are
maintained. Since the hysteresis for the 10-4% Bistable
is small, there is a negligible impact on the CEA withdrawal
analyses. Calculated peak power and heat flux are not
[[Page 66385]]
significantly changed as a result of the bistable hysteresis. All
acceptance criteria are still met for these events. There is no
change to any margin of safety as a result of this change.
Clarification of the THERMAL POWER input to the operating
bypasses and automatic bypass removals of the 10-4%
Bistable does not alter the operation of the operating bypasses and
automatic bypass removals of the affected reactor trips. This change
corrects a discrepancy between the formal definition of this
terminology and its use in the context of the applicable Technical
Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change 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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway,
Jackson, Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-
334 and 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
(BVPS-1 and 2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would:
(1) Modify Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.3.2.9, which verifies that the Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System Response Times are within the limits for
the recirculation spray pumps, (2) revise Section 1.4 of the TSs to
add clarification to Notes associated with SRs in accordance with
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler, TSTF 475-A, Revision 1,
``Control Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM [Source Range Monitor]
Insert Control Rod Action,'' (3) revise the BVPS-1 operating license
to remove a License Condition for recommended inspections of steam
generator repairs, and (4) revise the BVPS-2 operating license to
remove an exemption to 10 CFR 70.24.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Operating License pages and Example
1.4-1 are editorial changes that do not have any effect on equipment
or plant operation. Therefore, these proposed changes will not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
The elimination of the requirement to verify a response time for
the recirculation spray pumps will not affect the operation of the
pumps and will not impact the applicable safety analyses because the
potential variation in the measurable response time has an
insignificant effect on the results of the applicable safety
analyses. The recirculation spray system is an accident mitigation
system, so no new accident initiators are created by the elimination
of the subject surveillance requirement. Thus eliminating the
surveillance requirement will not result in a significant increase
in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The
elimination of the subject surveillance requirement will not impact
the accident mitigation function of the recirculation spray system
because the pump response time is not a critical safety analyses
assumption due to the fact that the potential variation in the
measurable response time has an insignificant effect on the
analysis. Since the post-accident performance of the recirculation
spray system is not changed by eliminating the requirement to verify
a response time for the pumps, the proposed change will not involve
a significant increase in consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the elimination of the surveillance
requirement will not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Operating License pages and Example
1.4-1 are editorial changes that do not have any effect on equipment
or plant operation. Therefore, these proposed changes will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
The elimination of the surveillance requirement to verify a
response time for the recirculation spray pumps will not affect the
operation of the pumps. The pumps will continue to perform in the
same manner after the elimination of the surveillance requirement as
they do with the surveillance requirement. Therefore, the
elimination of the surveillance requirement will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 proposed changes to the Operating License pages and Example
1.4-1 are editorial changes that do not have any effect on equipment
or plant operation. Therefore, these proposed changes will not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The elimination of the surveillance requirement to verify a
response time for the recirculation spray pumps is consistent with
the applicable safety analysis since a response time for the pumps
is not an analysis assumption. As a result the existing margin of
safety is not impacted. Therefore, the elimination of the
surveillance requirement will not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Watt Bar Nuclear Plan, Unit 1 license by adding an exception to
Operating License Condition 2.F regarding the provisions of the Fire
Protection Program.
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:
A. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the design of the automatic
total-flooding CO2 [carbon dioxide] suppression system,
the operational characteristics or function of the CO2
suppression system, the interfaces between the CO2
suppression system and other plant systems, or the reliability of
the CO2 suppression system. The CO2
suppression system is not considered an initiator of any Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident or transient
previously evaluated. The CO2 suppression system is
designed to extinguish a fire or control and minimize the effects of
a fire until the fire brigade can respond and extinguish it.
The consequences of previously evaluated accidents and
transients will not be significantly affected by the revised
requirements for CO2 concentration in the Auxiliary
Instrument Room because the CO2 suppression system is not
credited in the accident analyses. Although the function of the
system is to extinguish a fire or control
[[Page 66386]]
and minimize the effects of a fire until the fire brigade can
respond and extinguish it, this function does not mitigate accidents
or transients. Thus, the consequences of accidents or transients
previously evaluated are not affected by the proposed change in the
required CO2 concentration for the Auxiliary Instrument
Room.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
B. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a change in the design,
configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed
change will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is
initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be
changed. The capability for fire suppression and extinguishment will
not be changed. The proposed change does not affect the interaction
of the CO2 suppression system with any system whose
failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. As such, no new
failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
C. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the plant design, including
instrument setpoints, nor does it alter the assumptions contained in
the safety analyses. The CO2 suppression system is
designed for fire suppression and extinguishment and is not assumed
or credited for accident mitigation. Although the change does reduce
a parameter (CO2 concentration) specified in the license,
the proposed change does not impact the redundancy or availability
of equipment required for accident mitigation, or the ability of the
plant to cope with design basis accident events.
Therefore, the 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
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 System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-251, Turkey Point
Plant, Unit 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: September 1, 2009, supplemented
by letters dated October 28, 29, and 31, November 5, 6, 12, and 13,
2009.
Brief description of amendment: The request would change the
implementation date of approved license amendment 229 for Unit 4, dated
July 17, 2007, from ``prior to the end of Turkey Point 4 cycle 24'' to
``no later than February 28, 2011, for Unit 4 only.''
Date of issuance: November 13, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.
Amendment No.: 237.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-41: Amendment revised
the license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (74
FR 47278). The supplements dated October 28, 29, and 31, November 5, 6,
12, and 13, 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 November 13, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of application for amendments: April 24, 2009 (TS-464).
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revised the
Technical Specifications (TS) Bases sections 3.1.6, ``Rod Pattern
Control,'' and 3.3.2.1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation'' to allow
the Browns Ferry units to reference in the improved control rod banked
position withdrawal sequence (BPWS) when performing a reactor shutdown.
In addition, the proposed changes added a footnote to TS Table 3.3.2.1-
1, ``Control Rod Block Instrumentation''. The proposed changes are
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved Industry
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-476, Revision 1, ``Improved BPWS
Control Rod Insertion Process (NEDO-33091).''
Date of issuance: November 19, 2009.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 276, 303, and 262.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (74 FR
37249).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2009.
[[Page 66387]]
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of December 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-29545 Filed 12-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
