Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices 26995
Purpose: Discuss issues related to 10 NUCLEAR REGULATORY * The schedule for Commission
CFR part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct COMMISSION meetings is subject to change on short
Material. notice. To verify the status of meetings,
Sunshine Act; Meetings call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.
Date and Time for Closed Session
Contact person for more information:
Meeting: May 23, 2006, from 2:30 p.m. DATE: Weeks of May 8, 15, 22, 29, June Michelle Schroll, (301) 415–1662.
to 3 p.m. Eastern standard Time. This 5, 12, 2006.
session will be closed so that NRC staff * * * * *
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference The NRC Commission Meeting
and ACMUI members can discuss Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Schedule can be found on the Internet
information relating solely to internal Maryland. at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/
personnel rules. STATUS: Public and closed. policy-making/schedule.html.
Dates and Times for Public Meetings: MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: * * * * *
May 23, 2006, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The NRC provides reasonable
Week of May 8, 2006
Eastern Standard Time. accommodation to individuals with
There are no meetings scheduled for disabilities where appropriate. If you
Public Information: Any member of the Week of May 8, 2006.
the public who wishes to participate in need a reasonable accommodation to
the teleconference discussion may Week of May 15, 2006—Tentative participate in these public meetings, or
contact Mohammad S. Saba for contact need this meeting notice or the
Monday, May 15, 2006 transcript or other information from the
information.
12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public public meetings in another format (e.g.
Conduct of Meeting: Leon S. Malmud, Meeting) (Tentative). braille, large print), please notify the
M.D., will chair the meeting. Dr. a. Pa’ina Hawaii, LLC, LBP–06–4, 63 NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator,
Malmud will conduct the meeting in a NRC 99 (Jan. 24, 2006) (admitting Deborah Chan, at 301–415–7041, TDD:
manner that will facilitate the orderly three safety contentions and 301–415–2100, or by e-mail at
conduct of business. The following standing); LBP–06–12, 63 NRC— DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on
procedures apply to public participation (March 24, 2006) (Tentative). requests for reasonable accommodation
in the meeting: 1 p.m. Briefing on Status of will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Implementation of Energy Policy Act * * * * *
1. Persons who wish to provide a
of 2005 (Public Meeting) (Contact: This notice is distributed by mail to
written statement should submit a
Scott Moore, (301) 415–7278.) several hundred subscribers; if you no
reproducible copy to Mohammad S.
This meeting will be webcast live at longer wish to receive it, or would like
Saba, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov. to be added to the distribution, please
Commission, Mail Stop T8F03,
3:30 p.m. Discussion of Management contact the Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC 20555. Alternatively,
Issues (closed—ex. 2). Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969).
an e-mail can be submitted to In addition, distribution of this meeting
mss@nrc.gov. Submittals must be Tuesday, May 16, 2006 notice over the Internet system is
postmarked or e-mailed by May 15, 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the available. If you are interested in
2006, and must pertain to the topics on Agency Action Review Meeting— receiving this Commission meeting
the agenda for the meeting. Reactors/Materials (Public Meeting) schedule electronically, please send an
2. Questions from members of the (Contact: March Tonacci, (301) 415– electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov.
public will be permitted during the 4045.) Dated: May 4, 2006.
meeting, at the discretion of the This meeting will be webcast live at R. Michelle Schroll,
Chairman. the Web address, http://www.nrc.gov. Office of the Secretary.
3. The transcript and written Week of May 22, 2006—Tentative [FR Doc. 06–4364 Filed 5–5–06; 8:45 am]
comments will be available for BILLING CODE 7590–01–M
inspection on NRC’s web site (http:// Wednesday, May 24, 2006
www.nrc.gov) and at the NRC Public 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, (closed—ex. 1). NUCLEAR REGULATORY
Rockville, MD 20852–2738, telephone 1:30 p.m. All Employees Meeting COMMISSION
(800) 397–4209, on or about August 20, (Public Meeting) Marriott Bethesda
North Hotel, Salons, D–H 5701 Biweekly Notice; Applications and
2006.
Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852. Amendments to Facility Operating
This meeting will be held in Licenses Involving No Significant
accordance with the Atomic Energy Act Week of May 29, 2006—Tentative Hazards Considerations
of 1954, as amended (primarily section Wednesday, May 31, 2006
161a); the Federal Advisory Committee I. Background
1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the
Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the
(closed—ex. 1). Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Commission’s regulations in Title 10,
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, part 7. Week of June 5, 2006—Tentative (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, ths 3rd day Wednesday, June 7, 2006 staff) is publishing this regular biweekly
of May 2006.
9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues notice. The Act requires the
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (closed—ex. 1 & 3). Commission publish notice of any
Andrew L. Bates, amendments issued, or proposed to be
Week of June 12, 2006—Tentative
Advisory Committee Management Officer. issued and grants the Commission the
[FR Doc. E6–6996 Filed 5–8–06; 8:45 am] There are no meetings scheduled for authority to issue and make
the Week of June 12, 2006. immediately effective any amendment
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
* * * * * to an operating license upon a
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:02 May 08, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM 09MYN1
26996 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices
determination by the Commission that Should the Commission take action Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
such amendment involves no significant prior to the expiration of either the notice of a hearing or an appropriate
hazards consideration, notwithstanding comment period or the notice period, it order.
the pendency before the Commission of will publish in the Federal Register a As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
a request for a hearing from any person. notice of issuance. Should the petition for leave to intervene shall set
This biweekly notice includes all Commission make a final No Significant forth with particularity the interest of
notices of amendments issued, or Hazards Consideration Determination, the petitioner in the proceeding, and
proposed to be issued from April 14, any hearing will take place after how that interest may be affected by the
2006 to April 27, 2006. The last issuance. The Commission expects that results of the proceeding. The petition
biweekly notice was published on April the need to take this action will occur should specifically explain the reasons
25, 2006 (71 FR 23952). very infrequently. why intervention should be permitted
Written comments may be submitted with particular reference to the
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
by mail to the Chief, Rules and following general requirements: (1) The
Amendments to Facility Operating
Directives Branch, Division of name, address, and telephone number of
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Administrative Services, Office of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
Hazards Consideration Determination,
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
and Opportunity for a Hearing
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– right under the Act to be made a party
The Commission has made a 0001, and should cite the publication to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
proposed determination that the date and page number of this Federal extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
following amendment requests involve Register notice. Written comments may property, financial, or other interest in
no significant hazards consideration. also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two the proceeding; and (4) the possible
Under the Commission’s regulations in White Flint North, 11545 Rockville effect of any decision or order which
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 may be entered in the proceeding on the
of the facility in accordance with the a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
proposed amendment would not (1) Copies of written comments received petition must also set forth the specific
involve a significant increase in the may be examined at the Commission’s contentions which the petitioner/
probability or consequences of an Public Document Room (PDR), located requestor seeks to have litigated at the
accident previously evaluated; or (2) at One White Flint North, Public File proceeding.
create the possibility of a new or Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first Each contention must consist of a
different kind of accident from any floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of specific statement of the issue of law or
accident previously evaluated; or (3) requests for a hearing and petitions for fact to be raised or controverted. In
involve a significant reduction in a leave to intervene is discussed below. addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
margin of safety. The basis for this Within 60 days after the date of provide a brief explanation of the bases
proposed determination for each publication of this notice, the licensee for the contention and a concise
amendment request is shown below. may file a request for a hearing with statement of the alleged facts or expert
The Commission is seeking public respect to issuance of the amendment to opinion which support the contention
comments on this proposed the subject facility operating license and and on which the petitioner/requestor
determination. Any comments received any person whose interest may be intends to rely in proving the contention
within 30 days after the date of affected by this proceeding and who at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor
publication of this notice will be wishes to participate as a party in the must also provide references to those
considered in making any final proceeding must file a written request specific sources and documents of
determination. Within 60 days after the for a hearing and a petition for leave to which the petitioner is aware and on
date of publication of this notice, the intervene. Requests for a hearing and a which the petitioner/requestor intends
licensee may file a request for a hearing petition for leave to intervene shall be to rely to establish those facts or expert
with respect to issuance of the filed in accordance with the opinion. The petition must include
amendment to the subject facility Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for sufficient information to show that a
operating license and any person whose Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 genuine dispute exists with the
interest may be affected by this CFR part 2. Interested persons should applicant on a material issue of law or
proceeding and who wishes to consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, fact. Contentions shall be limited to
participate as a party in the proceeding which is available at the Commission’s matters within the scope of the
must file a written request for a hearing PDR, located at One White Flint North, amendment under consideration. The
and a petition for leave to intervene. Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville contention must be one which, if
Normally, the Commission will not Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. proven, would entitle the petitioner/
issue the amendment until the Publicly available records will be requestor to relief. A petitioner/
expiration of 60 days after the date of accessible from the Agencywide requestor who fails to satisfy these
publication of this notice. The Documents Access and Management requirements with respect to at least one
Commission may issue the license System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic contention will not be permitted to
amendment before expiration of the 60- Reading Room on the Internet at the participate as a party.
day period provided that its final NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ Those permitted to intervene become
determination is that the amendment reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a parties to the proceeding, subject to any
involves no significant hazards request for a hearing or petition for limitations in the order granting leave to
consideration. In addition, the leave to intervene is filed within 60 intervene, and have the opportunity to
Commission may issue the amendment days, the Commission or a presiding participate fully in the conduct of the
prior to the expiration of the 30-day officer designated by the Commission or hearing.
comment period should circumstances by the Chief Administrative Judge of the If a hearing is requested, and the
change during the 30-day comment Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission has not made a final
period such that failure to act in a Panel, will rule on the request and/or determination on the issue of no
timely way would result, for example in petition; and the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration, the
derating or shutdown of the facility. Administrative Judge of the Atomic Commission will make a final
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices 26997
determination on the issue of no accessible from the ADAMS Public modes are introduced by the proposed
significant hazards consideration. The Electronic Reading Room on the Internet change. The proposed amendment does not
final determination will serve to decide at the NRC Web site, http:// introduce accident initiators or malfunctions
when the hearing is held. If the final www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If that would cause a new or different kind of
accident. Therefore, the proposed
determination is that the amendment you do not have access to ADAMS or if amendment does not create the possibility of
request involves no significant hazards there are problems in accessing the a new or different kind of accident from any
consideration, the Commission may documents located in ADAMS, contact accident previously evaluated.
issue the amendment and make it the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397– 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
immediately effective, notwithstanding 4209, (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
the request for a hearing. Any hearing pdr@nrc.gov. Response: No.
held would take place after issuance of The proposed amendment adds a new
the amendment. If the final Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., document (No. 16) to TS 6.9.1.8 b to
determination is that the amendment Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power complement the list of documents used to
request involves a significant hazards Station, Unit No. 2 New London County, determine the core operating limits. These
Connecticut documents have been previously reviewed
consideration, any hearing held would and approved by the NRC. It also changes the
take place before the issuance of any Date of amendment request: January word ‘‘minimum’’ to ‘‘maximum’’ in TS 5.3.1
amendment. 26, 2006. to correctly state the limit on nominal
A request for a hearing or a petition Description of amendment request: average enrichment of reload fuel. This
for leave to intervene must be filed by: The proposed amendment would change restores TS 5.3.1 wording to the
(1) First class mail addressed to the update the list of Nuclear Regulatory wording previously approved by the NRC in
Office of the Secretary of the Commission-approved documents Amendment 274. The proposed changes have
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory specified in the Technical no impact on plant equipment operation. The
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Specifications that describe the proposed changes do not revise any setpoints
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and nor do they change the acceptance criteria
analytical methods used to determine
Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express used in the accident analyses. Therefore, the
the core operating limits. proposed changes will not result in a
mail, and expedited delivery services: Basis for proposed no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, hazards consideration determination:
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Attention: Rulemaking and issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail consideration, which is presented standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
addressed to the Office of the Secretary, below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, proposes to determine that the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve amendment request involves no
HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile a significant increase in the probability or
transmission addressed to the Office of consequences of an accident previously
significant hazards consideration.
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Commission, Washington, DC, Response: No. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Attention: Rulemakings and The proposed amendment adds a new Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101, document (No. 16) to TS 6.9.1.8 b to Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385.
verification number is (301) 415–1966. complement the list of documents used to NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
A copy of the request for hearing and determine the core operating limits. These
documents have been previously reviewed Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
petition for leave to intervene should Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power
and approved by the NRC. It also changes the
also be sent to the Office of the General Station, Unit No. 3 New London County,
word ‘‘minimum’’ to ‘‘maximum’’ in TS 5.3.1
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory to correctly state the limit on nominal Connecticut
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– average enrichment of reload fuel. This
0001, and it is requested that copies be change restores TS 5.3.1 wording to the
Date of amendment request: March
transmitted either by means of facsimile wording previously approved by the NRC in 28, 2006.
transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by e- Amendment 274. The proposed changes do Description of amendment request:
mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy not modify any plant equipment and do not The proposed amendment would delete
of the request for hearing and petition impact any failure modes that could lead to the license condition, Section 2.F of
for leave to intervene should also be an accident. Additionally, the proposed Facility Operating License No. NPF–49,
sent to the attorney for the licensee. changes have no effect on the consequence of which requires reporting of violations of
Nontimely requests and/or petitions any analyzed accident since the changes do the requirements in Section 2.C of
not affect the function of any equipment Facility Operating License No. NPF–49.
and contentions will not be entertained
credited for accident mitigation. Based on
absent a determination by the The change is consistent with the notice
this discussion, the proposed amendment
Commission or the presiding officer of does not increase the probability or published in the Federal Register on
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board consequences of an accident previously November 4, 2005, as part of the
that the petition, request and/or the evaluated. consolidated line item improvement
contentions should be granted based on 2. Does the proposed amendment create process.
a balancing of the factors specified in 10 the possibility of a new or different kind of Basis for proposed no significant
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii). accident from any accident previously hazards consideration determination:
For further details with respect to this evaluated? As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
action, see the application for Response: No. analysis of the issue of no significant
amendment which is available for The proposed changes do not modify any hazards consideration is presented
plant equipment and there is no impact on
public inspection at the Commission’s the capability of existing equipment to
below:
PDR, located at One White Flint North, perform its intended functions. No system 1. Does the change involve a significant
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville setpoints are being modified and no changes increase in the probability or consequences
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. are being made to the method in which plant of an accident previously evaluated?
Publicly available records will be operations are conducted. No new failure Response: No.
The proposed change involves the deletion administrative. No actual plant equipment, Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8 is
of a reporting requirement. The change does operating practices, or accident analyses are added to the TS to provide this
not affect plant equipment or operating affected by this change. Therefore, the allowance and define the requirements
practices and therefore does not significantly proposed change does not involve a and limitations for its use.
increase the probability or consequences of significant increase in the probability or
This change was proposed by the
an accident previously evaluated. consequences of an accident previously
2. Does the change create the possibility of evaluated. industry’s Technical Specification Task
a new or different kind of accident from any 2. Create the possibility of a new or Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF–
accident previously evaluated? different kind of accident from any kind of 372, Revision 4. The NRC staff issued a
Response: No. accident previously evaluated: notice of opportunity for comment in
The proposed change is administrative in The proposed change to the Oconee TSs the Federal Register on November 24,
that it deletes a reporting requirement. The and FOLs removes requirements associated 2004 (69 FR 68412), on possible
change does not add new plant equipment, with a temporary extension of TS 3.8.1 RA amendments concerning TSTF–372,
change existing plant equipment, or affect the CTs that are no longer applicable because of including a model safety evaluation and
operating practices of the facility. Therefore, the completion of the Keowee Refurbishment
model no significant hazards
the change does not create the possibility of modifications on both KHUs. As such, the
a new or different kind of accident from any proposed changes are administrative. No consideration (NSHC) determination,
accident previously evaluated. actual plant equipment, operating practices, using the consolidated line item
3. Does the proposed amendment involve or accident analyses are affected by this improvement process. The NRC staff
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? change. No new accident causal mechanisms subsequently issued a notice of
Response: No. are created as a result of this change. The availability of the models for referencing
The proposed change deletes a reporting proposed change does not impact any plant in license amendment applications in
requirement. The change does not affect systems that are accident initiators; neither the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70
plant equipment or operating practices and does it adversely impact any accident FR 23252). The licensee affirmed the
therefore does not involve a significant mitigating systems. Therefore, this change
applicability of the following NSHC
reduction in a margin of safety. does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident determination in its application dated
Based on the above, the NRC staff April 17, 2006.
previously evaluated.
proposes that the change presents no 3. Involve a significant reduction in a Basis for proposed no significant
significant hazards consideration under margin of safety. hazards consideration determination:
the standards set forth in 10 CFR The proposed change does not adversely As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
50.92(c). affect any plant safety limits, set points, or analysis of the issue of no significant
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. design parameters. The change also does not hazards consideration is presented
Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, adversely affect the fuel, fuel cladding, below:
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Reactor Coolant System, or containment
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385. integrity. The proposed change eliminates Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not
NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts. requirements that are no longer applicable Involve a Significant Increase in the
and is administrative in nature. Therefore, Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. the proposed change does not involve a Previously Evaluated
50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change allows a delay time
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, The NRC staff has reviewed the for entering a supported system TS when the
Oconee County, South Carolina licensee’s analysis and, based on this inoperability is due solely to an inoperable
review, it appears that the three snubber if risk is assessed and managed. The
Date of amendment request: June 15,
postulated seismic event requiring snubbers
2005. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are is a low-probability occurrence and the
Description of amendment request: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff overall TS system safety function would still
The proposed amendments would proposes to determine that the be available for the vast majority of
revise the Technical Specifications to amendment request involves no anticipated challenges. Therefore, the
eliminate the out of date requirements significant hazards consideration. probability of an accident previously
associated with the completion of the Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. evaluated is not significantly increased, if at
Keowee Refurbishment modifications Vaughn, Legal Department (PB05E), all. The consequences of an accident while
on both Keowee Hydro Units. Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South relying on allowance provided by proposed
LCO 3.0.8 are no different than the
Basis for proposed no significant Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina consequences of an accident while relying on
hazards consideration determination: 28201–1006. the TS required actions in effect without the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8.
licensee has provided its analysis of the Marinos. Therefore, the consequences of an accident
issue of no significant hazards previously evaluated are not significantly
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
consideration, which is presented affected by this change. The addition of a
Columbia Generating Station, Benton requirement to assess and manage the risk
below:
County, Washington introduced by this change will further
1. Involve a significant increase in the minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this
probability or consequences of an accident Date of amendment request: April 17,
change does not involve a significant
previously evaluated: 2006.
increase in the probability or consequences
The proposed change to the Oconee Description of amendment request: of an accident previously evaluated.
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 removes The proposed change allows a delay
out of date requirements associated with time for entering a supported system Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not
temporary extensions to Required Action Create the Possibility of a New or Different
technical specification (TS) when the Kind of Accident From Any Previously
(RA) Completion Times (CTs) that are no inoperability is due solely to an Evaluated
longer applicable because of the completion inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed

of the Keowee Refurbishment modifications The proposed change does not involve a
on both KHUs. The proposed change also
and managed consistent with the physical alteration of the plant (no new or
removes a Facility Operating License (FOL) program in place for complying with the different type of equipment will be installed).
License Condition that is no longer needed requirements of paragraph 50.65(a)(4) of Allowing delay times for entering supported
since the associated TS change is no longer Title 10 of the Code of Federal system TS when inoperability is due solely
applicable. As such, the proposed change is Regulations (10 CFR). Limiting to inoperable snubbers, if risk is assessed and
managed, will not introduce new failure Response: No. ongoing degradation of Boraflex, the
modes or effects and will not, in the absence The proposed change to remove the RCS neutron absorbing function currently
of other unrelated failures, lead to an structural integrity controls from the TSs performed by Boraflex will be replaced
accident whose consequences exceed the does not impact any mitigation equipment or
consequences of accidents previously
by some combination of rod cluster
the ability of the RCS pressure boundary to
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to fulfill any required safety function. Since no
control assemblies, Metamic rack
assess and manage the risk introduced by this accident mitigation or initiators are impacted inserts, and administrative controls that
change will further minimize possible by this change, no design basis accidents are require mixing higher reactivity fuel
concerns. Thus, this change does not create affected. with lower-reactivity fuel.
the possibility of a new or different kind of Therefore, the proposed change does not Basis for proposed no significant
accident from an accident previously involve a significant increase in the hazards consideration determination:
evaluated. probability or consequences of any accident As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not previously evaluated. licensee has provided its analysis of the
Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin 2. Does the proposed change create the issue of no significant hazards
of Safety possibility of a new or different kind of
consideration, which is presented
The proposed change allows a delay time accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No. below:
for entering a supported system TS when the
inoperability is due solely to an inoperable The proposed change will not alter the 1. Would operation of the facility in
snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The plant configuration or change the manner in accordance with the proposed amendment
postulated seismic event requiring snubbers which the plant is operated. No new failure involve a significant increase in the
is a low-probability occurrence and the modes are being introduced by the proposed probability or consequences of an accident
overall TS system safety function would still change. previously evaluated?
be available for the vast majority of Therefore, the proposed change does not No. Operation in accordance with
anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the create the possibility of a new or different proposed amendment does not involve a
proposed TS changes was assessed following kind of accident from any previously significant increase in the probability or
the three-tiered approach recommended in evaluated. consequences of an accident previously
RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding 3. Does the proposed change involve a evaluated. The proposed amendments do not
risk assessment was performed to justify the significant reduction in the margin of safety? change or modify the fuel, fuel handling
proposed TS changes. [The proposed LCO Response: No. processes, spent fuel storage racks, number of
3.0.8 defines limitations on the use of the Removal of TS 3.4.10.1 from the TSs does fuel assemblies that may be stored in the
provision and includes a requirement for the not reduce the controls that are required to spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation
licensee to assess and manage the risk maintain the RCS pressure boundary for rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and
associated with operation with an inoperable ASME Code [American Society of cleanup system. The proposed amendment
snubber.] The net change to the margin of Mechanical Engineers’ Boiler and Pressure was evaluated for impact on the following
safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change Vessel Code] Class 1, 2, or 3 components. No previously evaluated events and accidents:
does not involve a significant reduction in a equipment or RCS safety margins are a. A fuel handling accident (FHA),
margin of safety. impacted due to the proposed change. b. A cask drop accident,
Therefore, the proposed change does not c. A fuel mispositioning event,
The NRC staff proposes to determine involve a significant reduction in the margin d. A spent fuel pool boron dilution event,
that the amendment request involves no of safety. e. A seismic event, and
significant hazards consideration. f. A loss of spent fuel pool cooling event.
Attorney for licensee: William A. The NRC staff has reviewed the
The probability of a FHA is not
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K licensee’s analysis and, based on this significantly increased because
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006– review, it appears that the three implementation of the proposed amendment
3817. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are will employ the same equipment and process
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff to handle fuel assemblies that is currently
proposes to determine that the used. Also, tests have confirmed that the
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– amendment request involves no Metamic inserts can be installed and
368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 significant hazards consideration. removed without damaging the host fuel
(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas Attorney for licensee: Nicholas S. assemblies. The FHA radiological
consequences are not increased because the
Date of amendment request: March Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn,
radiological source term of a single fuel
20, 2006. 1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC assembly will remain unchanged. Therefore,
Description of amendment request: 20006–3817. the proposed amendments do not
The proposed change removes Arkansas NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. significantly increase the probability or
Nuclear One, Unit 2 reactor coolant consequences of a FHA.
Florida Power and Light Company,
system (RCS) structural integrity The proposed amendments do not increase
Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey the probability of dropping a fuel transfer
requirements contained in Technical
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade cask because they do not introduce any new
Specification (TS) 3.4.10.1. The
County, Florida heavy loads to the SFP and do not affect
proposed change is consistent with
Date of amendment request: January heavy load handling processes. Also, the
NUREG–1432, ‘‘Standard Technical insertion of Metamic rack inserts does not
Specifications—Combustion 27, 2006. increase the consequences of the cask drop
Engineering Plants,’’ Revision 3.1. Description of amendment request: accident because the radiological source term
Basis for proposed no significant The proposed amendment involves of that accident is developed from a non-
hazards consideration determination: changes to Technical Specifications mechanistically derived quantity of damaged
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Section 3/4 9.1, ‘‘Boron Concentration,’’ fuel stored in the spent fuel pool. Therefore,
licensee has provided its analysis of the Section 3/4 9.14, ‘‘Spent Fuel Storage,’’ the proposed amendments do not
issue of no significant hazards and Section 3/4 5.5.1, ‘‘Fuel Storage significantly increase the probability or
consideration, which is presented Criticality.’’ The proposed license consequences of a cask drop accident.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
below: amendment removes reliance on amendment will not change the probability
1. Does the proposed change involve a Boraflex as a neutron absorber in Turkey of a fuel mispositioning event because fuel
significant increase in the probability or Point Units 3 and 4 spent fuel pool movement will continue to be controlled by
consequences of an accident previously storage racks. To preclude continued approved fuel handling procedures. These
evaluated? loss of reactivity margin due to the procedures continue to require identification
of the initial and target locations for each fuel some of the space available on two sides of involve a significant reduction in a margin of
assembly that is moved. The consequences of the fuel assembly. Tests confirm that the safety?
a fuel mispositioning event are not changed insert can be installed and removed without No. Operation of the facility in accordance
because the reactivity analysis demonstrates damaging the fuel assembly. Analyses with the proposed amendment does not
that the same subcriticality criteria and demonstrate that the presence of the inserts significantly reduce the margin of safety. The
requirements continue to be met for the does not adversely affect spent fuel cooling, proposed change was evaluated for its effect
worst-case fuel mispositioning event. seismic capability, or subcriticality. The on current margins of safety related to
Operation in accordance with the proposed aluminum (alloy 6061) and boron carbide criticality, structural integrity, and spent fuel
amendment will not change the probability materials of construction have been shown to heat removal capability. The margin of safety
of a boron dilution event because the systems be compatible with nuclear fuel, storage for subcriticality required by 10 CFR
and events that could affect spent fuel racks and spent fuel pool environments, and 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New criticality
soluble boron are unchanged. The generate no adverse material interactions. analysis confirms that operation in
consequences of a boron dilution event are Therefore, placing the inserts into the spent accordance with the proposed amendment
unchanged because the proposed amendment fuelpool storage racks can not cause a new continues to meet the required subcriticality
reduces the soluble boron requirement below or different kind of accident. margins. Also, the margin of safety for SFP
the currently required value and the Operation with the proposed fuel storage soluble boron concentration is actually
maximum possible water volume displaced patterns will not create a new or different increased because new analyses require less
by the inserts is an insignificant fraction of kind of accident because fuel movement will soluble boron than is currently required, and
the total spent fuel pool water volume. continue to be controlled by approved fuel much less than the value required by
Operation in accordance with the proposed handling procedures. These procedures Technical Specifications. The structural
amendment will not change the probability continue to require identification of the evaluations for the racks and spent fuel pool
of a seismic event, which is an Act of God. initial and target locations for each fuel with Metamic inserts installed show that the
The consequences of a seismic event are not assembly that is moved. There are no changes rack and spent fuel pool are unimpaired by
significantly increased because the forcing in the criteria or design requirements loading combinations during seismic motion,
functions for seismic excitation are not pertaining to spent fuel safety, including and there is no adverse seismic-induced
increased and because the mass of storage subcriticality requirements, and analyses interaction between the rack and Metamic
racks with Metamic inserts is not appreciably demonstrate that the proposed storage inserts.
increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate patterns meet these requirements and criteria The proposed change does not affect spent
adequate stress levels in the storage racks with adequate margins. Therefore, the fuel heat generation or the spent fuel cooling
when inserts are installed. proposed storage patterns can not cause a systems. A conservative analysis indicates
Operation in accordance with the proposed new or different kind of accident. that the design basis requirements and
amendment will not change the probability Operation with the added weight of the criteria for spent fuel cooling continue to be
of a loss of SFP cooling event because the Metamic inserts will not create a new or met with the Metamic inserts in place, and
systems and events that could affect SFP different accident. The net effect of the displacing coolant. Thermal hydraulic
cooling are unchanged. The consequences are adding the maximum number of inserts is to analysis of the local effects of an installed
not significantly increased because there are add less than one percent to the weight of the rack insert blocking peripheral flow show a
no changes in the SFP heat load or SFP loaded racks. Furthermore, the analyses of small increase in local water and fuel clad
cooling systems, structures or components. the racks with Metamic inserts installed
temperatures, but will remain within
Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate demonstrate that the stress levels in the rack
acceptable limits including no departure
that the current design requirements and modules continue to be considerably less
from nucleate boiling.
criteria continue to be met with the Metamic than allowable stress limits. Therefore, the
Based on these evaluations, operating the
inserts installed. added weight from the inserts can not cause
facility with the proposed amendment does
Based on the above, it is concluded that the a new or different kind of accident.
not involve a significant reduction in any
proposed amendments do not involve a Operation with the insert allowed to move
margin of safety.
significant increase in the probability or above spent fuel will not create a new or
consequences of an accident previously different kind of accident. The insert with its The NRC staff has reviewed the
evaluated. handling tool weighs considerably less than licensee’s analysis and, based on this
2. Would operation of the facility in the weight of a single fuel assembly. Single review, it appears that the three
accordance with the proposed amendment fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
create the possibility of a new or different over spent fuel assemblies and the same level
of safety in design and operation will be
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
kind of accident from any accident determine that the amendment request
previously evaluated? maintained when moving the inserts.
Furthermore, the effect of a dropped insert to involves no significant hazards
No. Operation in accordance with the
block the top of a storage cell has been consideration.
proposed amendments do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of evaluated in thermal-hydraulic analyses. Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross,
accident from any accident previously Therefore, the movement of inserts can not Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O.
evaluated. The proposed amendments do not cause a new or different kind of accident. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408–
change or modify the fuel, fuel handling Whereas the installed rack inserts will 0420.
processes, spent fuel racks, number of fuel displace a very small fraction of the fuel pool NRC Branch Chief: Michael L.
assemblies that may be stored in the pool, water volume and impose a very small Marshall, Jr.
decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel reduction in operator response time to
pool cooling and cleanup system. The effects previously-evaluated SFP accidents, the Nuclear Management Company, LLC,
of operating with the proposed amendment reduction will not promote a new or different Docket No. 50–306, Prairie Island
are listed below. The proposed amendments kind of accident. Also, displacement of water Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2,
along two sides of a stored fuel assembly may
were evaluated for the potential of each effect Goodhue County, Minnesota
to create the possibility of a new or different have some local reduction in the peripheral
kind of accident: cooling flow; however, this effect would be Date of amendment request: March
small compared to the flow induced through 13, 2006.
a. Addition of inserts to the spent fuel storage the fuel assembly and would in no way Description of amendment request:
racks, promote a new or different kind of accident.
b. New storage patterns,
The proposed amendment would
Based on the above, it is concluded that involve revision of the surveillance test
c. Additional weight from the inserts, operation with the proposed amendment
d. Insert movement above spent fuel, and does not create the possibility of a new or
load in Technical Specification (TS)
e. Displacement of fuel pool water by the different kind of accident from any accident 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’
inserts. previously evaluated. Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.3.
Each insert will be placed between a fuel 3. Would operation of the facility in This license amendment request
assembly and the storage cell wall, taking up accordance with the proposed amendment proposes to revise SR 3.8.1.3 to require
testing D5 and D6 monthly at or above emergency diesel generators have the a finding of ‘‘no significant hazards
4000 kW to demonstrate TS operability. capacity and the capability to assume the consideration’’ is justified.
In addition to the TS required testing, maximum auto-connected loads for Unit 2.
The proposed Technical Specification The NRC staff has reviewed the
NMC will continue monthly operation licensee’s analysis and, based on this
changes do not involve a change in the plant
at or above 90 percent of the emergency design, system operation, or the use of the review, it appears that the three
diesel generator (EDG) rated load to emergency diesel generators. The proposed standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
assist in early identification of degraded changes allow the emergency diesel generator satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
EDG capabilities which could prevent to be tested at a reduced load which proposes to determine that the
performance of their safety function. envelopes the required safety function loads amendment requests involve no
Basis for proposed no significant and continues to demonstrate the capability
significant hazards consideration.
hazards consideration determination: and capacity of the emergency diesel
generators to perform their required Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff,
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Esquire, Vice President, Counsel &
functions. There are no new failure modes or
licensee has provided its analysis of the mechanisms created due to testing the Secretary, Nuclear Management
issue of no significant hazards emergency diesel generators at the proposed Company, LLC, 700 First Street,
consideration, which is presented test loading. Testing of the emergency diesel Hudson, WI 54016.
below: generators at the proposed test loading does NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
not involve any modification in the
1. Do the proposed changes involve a operational limits or physical design of plant PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–
significant increase in the probability or systems. There are no new accident 387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam
consequences of an accident previously precursors generated due to the proposed test Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (SSES 1
evaluated? loading. and 2), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Response: No. The Technical Specification changes
This license amendment request proposes proposed in this license amendment do not Date of amendment request: February
to reduce the Prairie Island Nuclear create the possibility of a new or different 1, 2006.
Generating Plant Unit 2 emergency diesel kind of accident from any previously Description of amendment request:
generator’s monthly test loading which evaluated. The proposed amendment would clarify
demonstrates Technical Specification 3. Do the proposed changes involve a the Technical Specification (TS) testing
operability. The proposed test load will significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
frequency for the Surveillance
continue to assure that both Unit 2 Requirements (SRs) in TS 3.1.4,
emergency diesel generators have the This license amendment request proposes
capacity and the capability to assume the to reduce the Prairie Island Nuclear ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times.’’
maximum auto-connected loads for Unit 2. Generating Plant Unit 2 emergency diesel Basis for proposed no significant
The emergency diesel generators are generator’s monthly test loading which hazards consideration determination:
required to be operable in the event of a demonstrates Technical Specification As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
design basis accident coincident with a loss operability. The proposed test load will licensee has provided its analysis of the
of offsite power to mitigate the consequences continue to assure that both Unit 2 issue of no significant hazards
of the accident. They are also the alternate emergency diesel generators have the consideration, which is presented
AC source for a station blackout on the other capacity and the capability to assume the
maximum auto-connected loads for Unit 2.
below:
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant unit.
The emergency diesel generators are not The proposed Technical Specification 1. Does the proposed change involve a
accident initiators and therefore this change changes will continue to demonstrate that the significant increase in the probability or
does not involve a significant increase in the emergency diesel generators meet the consequences of an accident previously
probability of an accident previously Technical Specification definition of evaluated?
evaluated. operability, that is, the proposed testing will Response: No.
The accident analyses assume that at least demonstrate that the emergency diesel The control rod hydraulic scram insertion
one safeguards bus is provided with power generators will perform their safety function system is not an initiator to any accident
either from the offsite sources or the and the necessary emergency diesel generator sequence analyzed in the Final Safety
emergency diesel generators. The Technical attendant instrumentation, controls, cooling, Analysis Report (FSAR). The changes do not
Specification changes proposed in this lubrication and other auxiliary equipment involve any physical change to structures,
license amendment request will continue to required for the emergency diesel generators systems, or components (SSCs) and do not
assure that both Unit 2 emergency diesel to perform their safety function loads are also alter the method of operation or control of
generators have the capacity and the tested at this loading. The proposed testing SSCs. The current assumptions in the safety
capability to assume the maximum auto- will also continue to demonstrate the analysis regarding accident initiators and
connected loads for Unit 2. Thus, the changes capability and capacity of the emergency mitigation of accidents (including assumed
proposed in this license amendment request diesel generators to supply the required Unit scram insertion times) are unaffected by
do not involve a significant increase in the 2 loss of offsite power coincident with Unit these changes. No additional failure modes or
consequences of an accident previously 1 station blackout loads. Since the proposed mechanisms are being introduced and the
evaluated. surveillance testing will continue to likelihood of previously analyzed failures
The changes proposed in this license demonstrate operability, and the capability remains unchanged.
amendment do not involve a significant and capacity to supply their required Unit 2 Operation in accordance with the proposed
increase the probability or consequences of loss of offsite power coincident with Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) ensures that the
an accident previously evaluated. station blackout loads, the proposed control rods and associated scram insertion
2. Do the proposed changes create the Technical Specification changes do not function remain capable of performing the
possibility of a new or different kind of involve a significant reduction in a margin of function as described in the FSAR [Final
accident from any accident previously safety. Safety Analysis Report]. Therefore, the
evaluated? The Technical Specification changes mitigative scram functions will continue to
Response: No. proposed in this license amendment do not provide the protection assumed by the
This license amendment request proposes involve a significant reduction in a margin of analysis.
to reduce the Prairie Island Nuclear safety. Therefore, this change does not involve a
Generating Plant Unit 2 emergency diesel Based on the above, the Nuclear significant increase in the probability or
generator’s monthly test loading which Management Company concludes that the consequences of an accident previously
demonstrates Technical Specification proposed amendment presents no significant evaluated.
operability. The proposed test load will hazards consideration under the standards 2. Does the proposed change create the
continue to assure that both Unit 2 set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and, accordingly, possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously the Technical Specifications (TSs) to any component thereof is not an accident
evaluated? clarify certain requirements during fuel initiator. Actual fuel handling operations are
Response: No. movement and core alterations. The not affected by the proposed changes.
The proposed change does not involve a Consequently the probability of a
amendment would make the TSs
physical alteration of the plant. No new previously analyzed FHA is not affected by
equipment is being introduced, and installed consistent with the NRC-approved the proposed amendment. No other accident
equipment is not being operated in a new or Revision 2 to Technical Specification initiator is affected by the proposed changes.
different manner. There are no setpoints Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Therefore, this proposed amendment does
affected by this change at which protective or Specification Change Traveler, TSTF– not involve a significant increase in the
mitigative actions are initiated. This change 51, ‘‘Revise Containment Requirements probability of occurrence or radiological
will not alter the manner in which During Handling Irradiated Fuel and consequences of an accident previously
equipment operation is initiated, nor will the Core Alterations,’’ and NUREG–1433, evaluated.
functional demands on credited equipment 2. Does the change create the possibility of
‘‘Standard Technical Specifications
be changed. No alterations in the procedures a new or different kind of accident from any
that ensure the plant remains within General Electric Plants, BWR [boiling accident previously analyzed?
analyzed limits are being proposed, and no water reactor]/4.’’ Response: No.
changes are being made to the procedures Basis for proposed no significant The proposed changes would revise TS
relied upon to respond to an off-normal event hazards consideration determination: 3.6.5.3.1, FRVS Ventilation System and
as described in the FSAR. As such, no new As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 3.6.5.3.2, FRVS Recirculation System,
failure modes are being introduced. The licensee has provided its analysis of the ACTION b from, ‘‘* * * containment or
change does not alter assumptions made in issue of no significant hazards operations * * * ’’ to read ‘‘* * *
the safety analysis and licensing basis. containment and operations * * * ’’ to be
consideration, which is presented
[Therefore, this change does not create the consistent with NUREG–1433, Standard
possibility of a new or different kind of below: Technical Specifications General Electric
accident from any accident previously 1. Does the change involve a significant Plants, BWR/4’’ (STS). TS 3.7.1.2, Service
evaluated.] increase in the probability or consequences Water, and 3.8.3.2, Distribution—Shutdown,
3. Does the proposed change involve a of an accident previously analyzed? require the addition of ‘‘recently’’ to modify
significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. irradiated fuel consistent with NRC-approved
Response: No. The proposed changes would revise Revision 2 to Technical Specification Task
The margin of safety is established through Technical Specifications (TS) 3.6.5.3.1, FRVS Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
equipment design, operating parameters, and [filtration, recirculation and ventilation Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–51,
the setpoints at which automatic actions are system] Ventilation System, and 3.6.5.3.2, ‘‘Revise Containment Requirements During
initiated. Operation in accordance with the FRVS Recirculation System, ACTION b from, Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core
proposed TS ensures that the control rod ‘‘* * * containment or operations * * * ’’ to Alterations.’’ TS 3.8.1.2 A.C. Sources—
scram insertion system remains capable of read ‘‘* * * containment and operations Shutdown, 3.8.2.2, D.C. Sources—Shutdown,
performing the function as described in the * * * ’’ to be consistent with NUREG–1433, and 3.8.3.2, Distribution—Shutdown, require
FSAR. Sufficiently rapid insertion of control ‘‘Standard Technical Specifications General that ‘‘CORE ALTERATIONS’’ be added to
rods following certain accidents (scram time) Electric Plants, BWR/4’’ (STS). Technical ACTION a.
will prevent fuel damage, and thereby Specification 3.7.1.2, Service Water, and The proposed amendment will not create
maintain a margin of safety to fuel damage. 3.8.3.2, Distribution—Shutdown, require the the possibility of a new or different type of
No change is being made to the required addition of ‘‘recently’’ to modify irradiated accident from any accident previously
insertion rate specified in plant Technical fuel consistent with NRC-approved Revision evaluated because changes to the allowable
Specifications. Clarifying when control rod 2 to Technical Specification Task Force activity in the primary and secondary
insertion times must be verified following (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification systems do not result in changes to the
movement of fuel assemblies, without Change Traveler, TSTF–51, ‘‘Revise design or operation of these systems. The
actually changing the requirement Containment Requirements During Handling evaluation of the proposed changes indicates
(verification of insertion times will continue Irradiated Fuel and Core Alterations.’’ that all design standard and applicable safety
to be required whenever work that might Technical Specifications 3.8.1.2, A.C. criteria limits are met. Equipment important
impact the rod insertion time is done), does Sources—Shutdown, 3.8.2.2, DC Sources— to safety will continue to operate as designed.
not reduce the margin of safety related to fuel Shutdown, and 3.8.3.2, Distribution— Component integrity is not challenged. The
damage. Shutdown, require that ‘‘CORE changes do not result in any event previously
Therefore, the change does not involve a ALTERATIONS’’ be added to ACTION a. deemed incredible being made credible. The
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed changes associated with the changes do not result in more adverse
The NRC staff has reviewed the fuel handling accident (FHA) do not involve conditions or result in any increase in the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this a change to structures, components, or challenges to safety systems. The systems
systems that would affect the probability of affected by the changes are used to mitigate
review, it appears that the three
an accident previously evaluated in the Hope the consequences of a potential accident and
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report would not create the possibility of a new or
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff (UFSAR). The FHA for Hope Creek is defined different kind of accident from any
proposes to determine that the as a drop of a fuel assembly over irradiated previously evaluated.
amendment request involves no assemblies in the reactor core 24 hours after 3. Does the change involve a significant
significant hazards consideration. reactor shutdown. 10 CFR 50.67, ‘‘Accident reduction in the margin of safety?
Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Source Term’’ (AST), was used to evaluate Response: No.
Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL the dose consequences of a postulated The proposed changes would revise TS
Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., accident. The FHA has been analyzed 3.6.5.3.1, FRVS Ventilation System and
GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179. without credit for Secondary Containment; 3.6.5.3.2 FRVS Recirculation System,
NRC Branch Chief: Richard J. Laufer. Filtration, Recirculation and Ventilation ACTION b from ‘‘* * * containment or
System (FRVS); and CREF [control room operations * * * ’’ to read ‘‘* * *
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, emergency filtration] system. The resultant containment and operations * * * ’’ to be
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem radiological consequences are within the consistent with NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard
County, New Jersey acceptance criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.67 Technical Specifications General Electric
and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183. This Plants, BWR/4’’ (STS). TS 3.7.1.2, Service
Date of amendment request: October amendment does not alter the methodology Water, and 3.8.3.2, Distribution—Shutdown,
7, 2005. or equipment used in fuel handling require the addition of ‘‘recently’’ to modify
Description of amendment request: operations. The equipment hatch, personnel irradiated fuel consistent with NRC approved
The proposed amendment would revise air locks, other containment penetrations, or Revision 2 to Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Response: No. this change does not affect PSEG’s heavy load
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–51, The proposed change is a clarification to handling procedures and all structures,
‘‘Revise Containment Requirements During the Hope Creek operating license to recognize systems and components used for cask
Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core that the dry spent fuel storage system used handling will meet the existing commitments
Alterations.’’ TS 3.8.1.2 A.C. Sources— at the ISFSI [independent spent fuel storage to NUREG–0612, a cask drop event remains
Shutdown, 3.8.2.2 D.C. Sources—Shutdown, installation] is licensed separately by the non-credible as currently described in HCGS
and 3.8.3.2 Distribution—Shutdown, require NRC under 10 CFR part 72. The change does FSAR Section 15.7.5.
that ‘‘CORE ALTERATIONS’’ be added to not affect any SSCs [structure, systems and Therefore, the proposed change will not
ACTION a. components] used to operate the reactor or create the possibility of a new or different
The proposed changes revise the TS produce electrical power. The change also kind of accident from any previously
operational conditions where specific does not affect SSCs used to shut down the evaluated.
activities represent situations during which reactor, maintain it in a safe shutdown 3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant radioactive releases can be condition, or mitigate accidents. significant reduction in the margin of safety?
postulated. These operational conditions are The dry storage cask system design is Response: No.
consistent with the design basis analysis and supported by an NRC-approved criticality The proposed change is a clarification to
are established such that the radiological analysis that demonstrates the system will the Hope Creek operating license to recognize
consequences remain at or below the remain safely subcritical under all normal, that dry spent fuel storage systems are
regulatory guidelines. Safety margins and off-normal, and credible accident conditions licensed separately by the NRC under 10 CFR
analytical conservatisms are retained to applicable to the dry spent fuel storage Part 72. The change does not affect any SSCs
ensure that the analysis adequately bounds system, as defined in the cask CoC holder’s used to operate the reactor or produce
all postulated event scenarios. The proposed 10 CFR part 72 licensing basis. Dry spent fuel electrical power. The change also does not
TS continue to ensure that the total effective storage system loading operations are not affect SSCs used to shut down the reactor,
dose equivalent (TEDE) for the control room addressed in any Part 50 accident as maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or
(CR), the exclusion area boundary (EAB), and described in Chapter 15 of the HCGS [Hope mitigate accidents.
low population zone (LPZ) boundaries are Creek Generating Station] FSAR [final safety All safety analyses are consistent with the
below the corresponding acceptance criteria analysis report]. Dry spent fuel storage operations described in the dry spent fuel
specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. system loading in the spent fuel pool is storage system FSAR and have been
Therefore, these changes do not involve a governed by procedures that are consistent previously approved by the NRC as having
significant reduction in a margin of safety. with the requirements in the HI-STORM 100 sufficient safety margins. This change does
System 10 CFR part 72 FSAR. Heavy load not affect the dry spent fuel storage system
The NRC staff has reviewed the handling inside the Part 50 facility associated operation procedures or change any normal,
licensee’s analysis and, based on this with cask loading is conducted in accordance off-normal, or accident condition for which
review, it appears that the three with procedures that comply with the site’s the dry spent fuel storage system is designed.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are existing heavy load control program. Because Therefore, the proposed change will not
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff this change does not affect PSEG’s [PSEG involve a significant reduction in the margin
proposes to determine that the Nuclear, LLC] heavy load handling of safety.
amendment request involves no procedures and all structures, systems and
components used for cask handling will meet The NRC staff has reviewed the
significant hazards consideration. the existing commitments to NUREG–0612, a licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, cask drop event remains non-credible as review, it appears that the three
Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, currently described in HCGS FSAR Section standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 15.7.5. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
08038. Therefore, the proposed change does not proposes to determine that the
NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts. involve a significant increase in the amendment request involves no
probability or consequences of an accident significant hazards consideration.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, previously evaluated.
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
2. Does the proposed change create the
County, New Jersey possibility of a new or different kind of Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21,
accident from any accident previously P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ
Date of amendment request: February 08038.
evaluated?
23, 2006. Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Darrell J. Roberts.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change is a clarification to
The amendment would revise the Southern California Edison Company, et
the Hope Creek operating license to recognize
Operating License Condition 2.C.(6), that the dry spent fuel storage system is al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362,
‘‘Fuel Storage and Handling,’’ to clarify licensed separately by the NRC under 10 CFR San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
that the condition does not apply to part 72. The change does not affect any SSCs Units 2 and 3, San Diego County,
Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC)- used to operate the reactor or produce California
approved dry spent fuel storage systems. electrical power. The change also does not Date of amendment requests: April
The current condition states no more affect SSCs used to shut down the reactor,
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or
17, 2006.
than a total of three fuel assemblies Description of amendment requests:
mitigate accidents.
shall be out of approved shipping The dry spent fuel storage system design is The proposed amendments would
containers, fuel assembly storage racks supported by an NRC-approved criticality delete Section 2.G of the Facility
or the reactor at any one time. analysis that demonstrates the system will Operating Licenses, which require
Basis for proposed no significant remain safely subcritical under all normal, reporting of violations of the
hazards consideration determination: off-normal, and credible accident conditions, requirements in Sections 2.C(1), 2.C(3),
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the as defined in the cask CoC holder’s 10 CFR and 2.F of the Facility Operating
licensee has provided its analysis of the part 72 licensing basis. Dry spent fuel storage Licenses.
issue of no significant hazards system loading in the spent fuel pool is The NRC staff issued a notice of
consideration, which is presented governed by procedures that are consistent opportunity for comment in the Federal
with the requirements in the HI-STORM 100
below: System 10 CFR 72 FSAR. Heavy load
Register on August 29, 2005 (70 FR
1. Does the proposed change involve a handling inside the Part 50 facility associated 51098), including a model safety
significant increase in the probability or with cask loading is conducted in accordance evaluation and model no significant
consequences of an accident previously with procedures that comply with the site’s hazards consideration (NSHC)
evaluated? existing heavy load control program. Because determination, using the consolidated
line item improvement process. The 1. The proposed license amendment does change in the methods governing normal
licensee affirmed the applicability of the not involve a significant increase in the plant operation. The proposed change does
following NSHC determination in its probability or consequences of an accident not introduce a new accident initiator,
previously evaluated. accident precursor, or malfunction
application dated April 17, 2006.
The proposed change replaces the current mechanism. Therefore, the proposed change
Basis for proposed no significant does not create the possibility of a new or
TS requirement to implement a Containment
hazards consideration determination: Tendon Surveillance Program based on different kind of accident from any accident
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an Regulatory Guide 1.35, Rev. 2, with a previously evaluated.
analysis of the issue of no significant Containment Inspection Program Plan that 3. The proposed license amendment does
hazards consideration is presented complies with the current requirements of 10 not involve a significant reduction in a
below: CFR 50.55a. This regulation requires margin of safety.
licensees to implement a Containment By complying with the regulatory
1. Does the change involve a significant requirements described in 10 CFR 50.55a, the
Inspection Program Plan in compliance with
increase in the probability or consequences probability of a loss of containment structural
the 1992 Edition with the 1992 Addenda of
of an accident previously evaluated? integrity is maintained as low as reasonably
Subsection IWE, ‘‘Requirements for Class MC
Response: No. achievable. The Containment Inspection
The proposed change involves the deletion and Metallic Liners of Class CC Components
of Light-Water Cooled Plants,’’ and with Program Plan ensures that the containment
of a reporting requirement. The change does will function as designed to provide an
not affect plant equipment or operating Subsection IWL, ‘‘Requirements for Class CC
Concrete Components of Light-Water Cooled acceptable barrier to release of radioactive
practices and therefore does not significantly materials to the environment. The proposed
increase the probability or consequences of Plants,’’ of Section XI, Division 1, of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers change does not adversely affect plant
an accident previously evaluated. operation or existing safety analyses.
2. Does the change create the possibility of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME
Code) with additional modifications and Therefore, the proposed change does not
a new or different kind of accident from any involve a significant reduction in a margin of
accident previously evaluated? limitations as stated in 10 CFR
50.55a(b)(2)(ix). [Southern Nuclear Operating safety.
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in Company, Inc.] SNC has implemented a The NRC staff has reviewed the
that it deletes a reporting requirement. The Containment Inspection Program Plan that licensee’s analysis and, based on this
change does not add new plant equipment, complies with the regulatory requirements. review, it appears that the three
change existing plant equipment, or affect the This proposed TS amendment is requested to
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
operating practices of the facility. Therefore, update the TS to the latest 10 CFR 50.55a
regulatory requirements.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
the change does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any In addition, reporting requirements that are proposes to determine that the
accident previously evaluated. redundant to existing regulations are deleted, amendment request involves no
3. Does the proposed change involve a minor editorial changes are made, and the significant hazards consideration.
significant reduction in a margin of safety? applicability of SR 3.0.2 to the tendon Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H.
Response: No. surveillance program is deleted since Domby, Troutman Sanders,
The proposed change deletes a reporting surveillance frequencies and associated NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
requirement. The change does not affect extensions are specified in ASME Section XI, Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
plant equipment or operating practices and Subsection IWL. 30308–2216.
therefore does not involve a significant By complying with the regulatory NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C.
reduction in a margin of safety. requirements described in 10 CFR 50.55a, the Marinos.
The NRC staff proposes to determine probability of a loss of containment structural
that the amendment requests involve no integrity is maintained as low as reasonably Union Electric Company, Docket No.
achievable. Maintaining containment 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
significant hazards consideration. structural integrity as described in the
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Callaway County, Missouri
revised Containment Inspection Program
Porter, Esquire, Southern California Plan does not impact the operation of the Date of amendment request: March
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove reactor coolant system (RCS), containment 28, 2006.
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. spray (CS) system, or emergency core cooling Description of amendment request:
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao. system (ECCS). The Containment Inspection The amendment would delete
Program ensures that the containment will references to specific isolation valves in
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, function as designed to provide an acceptable the chemical and volume control system
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, barrier to release of radioactive materials to (CVCS) and to modify notes to allow (1)
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 the environment. The proposed change does an exception for decontamination
and 2, Burke County, Georgia not alter or prevent the ability of structures,
activities and (2) an exception for CVCS
Date of amendment request: March systems, and components (SSCs) from
performing their intended function to resin vessel operation. These are
29, 2006. changes to Technical Specifications
mitigate the consequences of an initiating
Description of amendment request: (TSs) 3.3.9, ‘‘Boron Dilution Mitigation
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed amendment would revise The proposed change does not impact any System (BDMS),’’ and 3.9.2, ‘‘Unborated
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), accident initiators or analyzed events, nor Water Source Isolation Valves.’’
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications does it impact the types or amounts of Basis for proposed no significant
(TSs) 5.5, ‘‘Programs and Manuals,’’ TS radioactive effluent that may be released hazards consideration determination:
5.6, ‘‘Reporting Requirements,’’ and TS offsite. Therefore, the proposed change does As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Bases for LCO [Limiting Condition for not involve a significant increase in the licensee has provided its analysis of the
Operation] 3.6.1, ‘‘Containment,’’ to probability or consequences of an accident
issue of no significant hazards
reflect the latest requirements for previously evaluated.
2. The proposed license amendment does consideration, which is presented
tendon surveillance. below:
Basis for proposed no significant not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident 1. Do the proposed changes involve a

hazards consideration determination:
previously evaluated. significant increase in the probability or
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Maintaining containment structural consequences of an accident previously
licensee has provided its analysis of the integrity does not impact the operation of the evaluated?
issue of no significant hazards RCS, CS system, or ECCS. The proposed Response: No.
consideration, which is presented change does not involve a modification to the The proposed changes do not involve a
below: physical configuration of the plant or a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an inadvertent boron dilution sources are identified for dilution sources, isolation of the CVCS resin
dilution accident by isolating the CVCS resin administrative control[s], the evaluation of a vessels and the purge line for detector
vessels in MODE 6 or by isolating the purge MODE 6 [boron] dilution event remains SJRE001 during flushing activities in MODE
line for detector SJRE001 during flushing unchanged. Isolating the CVCS resin vessels 6, places the plant in a safer condition than
activities in MODE 6. By recognizing these or isolating the purge line for detector before. In addition[,] specific isolation valves
potential [boron] dilution sources and by SJRE001 during flushing activities in MODE are removed from TS 3.3.9 and TS 3.9.2.
making TS 3.3.9 and TS 3.9.2 more generic 6 and making TS 3.3.9 and TS 3.9.2 more They are relocated from the [Technical]
for consideration of all potential [boron] generic does not impact the operability of Specifications to the appropriate TS Bases.
dilution sources, plant administrative any safety related equipment required for This is an administrative only change and is
controls are revised such that the plant is put plant operation. No new equipment will be consistent with the [Improved] Standard
in a safer condition than before. Specific added and no new limiting single failures are Technical Specifications, NUREG–1431.
isolation valves are removed from TS 3.3.9 created. The plant will continue to be Finally, allowing a [boron] dilution source
and TS 3.9.2. They are relocated from the operated within the envelope of the existing path to be unisolated under administrative
[Technical] Specifications to the appropriate safety analysis. In addition[,] specific controls, described in TS Bases 3.9.1 during
TS Bases. This is an administrative only isolation valves are removed from TS 3.3.9 refueling decontamination activities, is
change and is consistent with the [Improved] and TS 3.9.2. They are relocated from the acceptable under Amendment [No.] 97 to the
Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG– [Technical] Specifications to the appropriate Callaway Operating License and does not
1431. [The Wolf Creek Technical TS Bases. This is an administrative only involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Specifications are based on NUREG–1431.] change and is consistent with the [Improved] safety [ * * * ]. Allowing an exception for
Allowing a [boron] dilution source path to be Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG– CVCS resin vessel operation is acceptable
unisolated under administrative controls, 1431. Allowing a [boron] dilution source because chemistry controls may require some
described in TS Bases 3.9.1 during refueling path to be unisolated under administrative CVCS resin vessels to be configured with
decontamination activities, is acceptable as controls, described in TS Bases 3.9.1 during resin intended for boron dilution. Plant
allowed by Amendment [No.] 97 to the refueling decontamination activities, is conditions may warrant their use. As allowed
Callaway Operating License and does not acceptable as allowed by Amendment [No.] by the LCO Note these vessels may be
involve a significant increase in the 97 to the Callaway Operating License and unisolated under administrative controls.
probability or consequences of an inadvertent does not create the possibility of a new or The administrative controls ensure that the
boron dilution accident. Allowing an different kind of inadvertent boron dilution resin vessels are not [boron] dilution sources.
exception for CVCS resin vessel operation is accident. Allowing an exception for CVCS This change does not involve a significant
acceptable because chemistry controls may resin vessel operation is acceptable because reduction in a margin of safety [ * * * ].
require some CVCS resin vessels to be chemistry controls may require some CVCS Requiring the isolation of all unborated
configured with resin intended for boron resin vessels to be reconfigured with resin water source isolation valves in higher plant
dilution. Plant conditions may warrant their intended for boron dilution. Plant conditions modes when both trains of BDMS are
use. As allowed by the LCO [limiting may warrant their use. As allowed by the inoperable or when no reactor coolant loop
condition for operation] Note, these vessels LCO Note these vessels may be unisolated is in operation does not involve a significant
may be unisolated under administrative under administrative controls. The reduction in the margin of safety. The
controls. The administrative controls ensure administrative controls ensure that the resin changes to the [Technical] Specifications
that the resin vessels are not [boron] dilution vessels are not [boron] dilution sources. make it generic and [remain] consistent with
sources [for the reactor coolant system These changes do not create the possibility the plant accident analyses. Allowing
(RCS)]. These changes do not involve a of a new or different kind of accident from exceptions for CVCS resin vessel operation is
significant increase in the probability or an inadvertent boron dilution accident acceptable because chemistry controls may
consequences of an inadvertent boron previously evaluated. require some CVCS resin vessels to be
dilution accident. Requiring the isolation of unborated water configured with resin intended for boron
The proposed changes do not involve a source isolation valves in higher plant modes dilution. Plant conditions may warrant their
significant increase in the probability or when both trains of BDMS are inoperable or use. As allowed by these exception Notes,
consequences of an inadvertent boron when a condition of no RCS loop in these vessels may be unisolated under
dilution accident by requiring the isolation of operation exists, does not create the administrative controls. The administrative
all unborated water source isolation valves in possibility of a new or different kind of controls ensure that the resin vessels are not
higher plant modes when both trains of inadvertent boron dilution accident. [boron] dilution sources.
BDMS are inoperable or when a condition of Proposed TS 3.3.9 is generic and remains Therefore, the proposed changes do not
no reactor coolant loop in operation exists. consistent with the plant accident analyses. involve a significant reduction in [a] margin
Proposed TS 3.3.9 Required Actions [B.3.1, Allowing exceptions for CVCS resin vessel of safety.
B.3.2, C.1 and C.2] are generic and remain operation is acceptable because chemistry The NRC staff has reviewed the
consistent with the plant accident analyses. controls may require some CVCS resin licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Allowing exceptions for CVCS resin vessel vessels to be configured with resin intended review, it appears that the three
operation is acceptable because chemistry for boron dilution. Plant conditions may
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
controls may require some CVCS resin warrant their use. As allowed by exception
vessels to be configured with resin intended Notes, these vessels may be unisolated under satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
for boron dilution. Plant conditions may administrative controls. The administrative proposes to determine that the
warrant their use. As allowed by exception controls ensure that the resin vessels are not amendment request involves no
Notes, these vessels may be unisolated under [boron] dilution sources. significant hazards consideration.
administrative controls. The administrative Therefore, the proposed changes do not Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill,
controls ensure that the resin vessels are not create a new or different kind of accident Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts &
[boron] dilution sources. from any accident previously evaluated. Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW.,
Therefore, the proposed changes do not 3. Do the proposed changes involve a Washington, DC 20037.
involve a significant increase in the significant reduction in a margin of safety? NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
probability or consequences of an accident Response: No.
previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not reduce the Union Electric Company, Docket No.
2. Do the proposed changes create the margin of safety. Although other potential 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
possibility of a new or different kind of [boron] dilution sources are identified for Callaway County, Missouri.
accident from any accident previously administrative control[s] and TS 3.3.9 and TS
evaluated? 3.9.2 are made generic for consideration of all Date of amendment request: March
Response: No. potential [boron] dilution sources, the 28, 2006.
The proposed changes do not create the evaluated margin of safety for a [boron] Description of amendment request:
possibility of a new or different kind of dilution event in MODE 6 remains the same. The amendment would revise Technical
accident. Although other potential [boron] Recognition of other potential [boron] Specification 5.0, ‘‘Administrative
Controls,’’ by changing position titles The NRC staff has reviewed the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
and department names. The amendment licensee’s analysis and, based on this reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
would not change any specific review, it appears that the three have access to ADAMS or if there are
responsibilities, job functions, standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are problems in accessing the documents
organizational commitments, or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
qualification requirements of plant proposes to determine that the Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209,
personnel. amendment request involves no (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
Basis for proposed no significant significant hazards consideration. pdr@nrc.gov.
hazards consideration determination: Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill,
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket
licensee has provided its analysis of the Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., No. 50–414, Catawba Nuclear Station,
issue of no significant hazards Washington, DC 20037. Unit 2, York County, South Carolina
consideration, which is presented NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
below: Date of application for amendments:
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
December 19, 2005, as supplemented on
1. Do the proposed changes involve a Facility Operating Licenses
significant increase in the probability or February 2 and 28, 2006.
During the period since publication of
consequences of an accident previously Brief description of amendments: The
evaluated? the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following amendment made a one-time change to
Response: No. the Technical Specifications regarding
The proposed changes do not affect amendments. The Commission has
accident initiators or assumptions. The determined for each of these the required steam generator (SG) tube
radiological consequences of accidents amendments that the application repair criteria for Catawba Unit 2 during
previously evaluated remain unchanged. complies with the standards and refueling outage 14 and operating cycle
These changes involve administrative requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 15. In addition, the proposed
changes concerning designations for position of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the amendment added a license condition
titles and department names. The changes do that requires a reduction in the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
not affect responsibilities, functions,
organizational commitments, or the The Commission has made appropriate allowable normal operating primary-to-
qualification requirements of plant findings as required by the Act and the secondary leakage rate from 150 gallons-
personnel. Commission’s rules and regulations in per-day to 75 gallons-per-day through
Therefore, the proposed changes do not 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in any one SG and from 600 gallons-per-
involve a significant increase in the the license amendment. day to 300 gallons-per-day through all
probability or consequences of an accident Notice of Consideration of Issuance of SGs. The proposed license condition
previously evaluated. Amendment to Facility Operating
2. Do the proposed changes create the
will be applicable only for the duration
License, Proposed No Significant of Catawba Unit 2 cycle 15 operation.
possibility of a new or different kind of Hazards Consideration Determination,
accident from any accident previously Date of issuance: March 31, 2006.
evaluated?
and Opportunity for a Hearing in
Response: No. connection with these actions was Effective date: As of the date of
The proposed changes are administrative published in the Federal Register as issuance and shall be implemented
in nature. The overall operating philosophy indicated. within 30 days from the date of issuance
of [the] Callaway Plant is unchanged. As Unless otherwise indicated, the March 31, 2006.
such, there are no hardware changes nor are Commission has determined that these
there any changes in the method by which
Amendment No.: 224.
amendments satisfy the criteria for
any safety-related plant system performs its categorical exclusion in accordance Renewed Facility Operating License
safety function. This amendment will not with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant No. NPF–52: Amendments revised the
affect the normal method of plant operation to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Technical Specifications and the
or change any operating parameters. No new
impact statement or environmental license.
accident scenarios, transient precursors,
failure mechanisms, or limiting single assessment need be prepared for these Date of initial notice in Federal
failures are introduced as a result of this amendments. If the Commission has Register: February 22, 2006 (71 FR
amendment. There will be no adverse effects prepared an environmental assessment 9169).
or challenges imposed on any safety-related under the special circumstances
system as a result of this amendment. provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has The Commission’s related evaluation
Therefore, the proposed changes do not made a determination based on that of the amendments is contained in a
create a new or different kind of accident assessment, it is so indicated. Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2006.
from any accident previously evaluated. For further details with respect to the No significant hazards consideration
3. Do the proposed changes involve a action see (1) the applications for
significant reduction in a margin of safety? comments received: No.
Response: No.
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
There will be no effect on the manner in the Commission’s related letter, Safety
which safety limits or limiting safety system Evaluation and/or Environmental
settings are determined nor will there be any Assessment as indicated. All of these
effect on those plant systems necessary to items are available for public inspection
assure the accomplishment of protection at the Commission’s Public Document
functions. The changes do not involve any Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
change in overall organizational North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
commitments. The changes to personnel Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

titles and department designations are
administrative and will not reduce any
Maryland. Publicly available records
margin of safety. will be accessible from the Agencywide
Therefore, the proposed changes do not Documents Access and Management
involve a significant reduction in the margin Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic
of safety. Reading Room on the Internet at the
Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket permit a longer completion time for the No significant hazards consideration
Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba Division 1 and Division 2 diesel comments received: No.
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York generators (DGs). This is a risk-informed
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
County, South Carolina TS change that would extend the DG
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. completion time from 72 hours (the
Power Station, Plymouth County,
50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear current limit) to 14 days.
Massachusetts
Date of issuance: April 14, 2006.
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
Effective date: As of the date of Date of application for amendment:
County, North Carolina
issuance and shall be implemented May 24, 2005.
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. within 30 days of the date of issuance. Brief description of amendment: The
50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee Amendment No.: 197. amendment deletes the main steam
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Facility Operating License No. NPF– isolation valve twice per week partial
Oconee County, South Carolina 21: The amendment revised the stroke testing surveillance specified in
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket No. Technical Specifications. Technical Specification 4.7.A.2.b.1.c.
72–004, Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Date of initial notice in Federal
Date of issuance: April 13, 2006.
Storage Installation, Oconee County, Register: June 22, 2004 (69 FR 34699).
The September 1, 2005, January 9, Effective date: As of the date of
South Carolina issuance, and shall be implemented
February 23, and March 20, 2006,
Date of application for amendments: supplemental letters and March 30, within 60 days.
August 5, 2005, as supplemented by 2006, e-mail provided additional Amendment No.: 220.
letters dated November 28 and information that clarified the Facility Operating License No. DPR–
December 14, 2005, and February 6, application, did not expand the scope of 35: The amendment revised the
2006. the application as originally noticed, Technical Specifications.
Brief description of amendments: The and did not change the staff’s original Date of initial notice in Federal
amendments revised the operating no significant hazards considerations Register: August 16, 2005 (70 FR
licenses approving the indirect transfer determination. 48205).
of the Renewed Facility Operating The Commission’s related evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation
Licenses for Catawba Nuclear Station, of the amendment is contained in a of the amendment is contained in a
Units 1 and 2, McGuire Nuclear Station, Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2006. Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2006.
Units 1 and 2, and Oconee Nuclear No significant hazards consideration
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, and the No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Materials License for Oconee comments received: No.
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Installation from Duke Energy Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Corporation to a new holding company, Power Station, Plymouth County,
Power Station, Plymouth County,
to be named Duke Energy Corporation, Massachusetts
Massachusetts
in connection with a proposed corporate Date of application for amendment:
restructuring and merger involving September 2, 2004, as supplemented by Date of application for amendment:
Cinergy Corporation. letters dated August 9, 2005, December May 24, 2005, as supplemented by letter
Date of issuance: April 1, 2006. 29, 2005 and March 22, 2006. dated December 6, 2005.
Effective date: As of the date of Brief description of amendment: The Brief description of amendment: The
issuance and shall be implemented amendment allows continued plant amendment revises the Technical
within 30 days from the date of operation with a single recirculation Specifications allowances for bypassing
issuance. loop operation at Pilgrim. the rod worth minimizer.
Amendment Nos.: 229, 225, 232, 214, Date of issuance: April 12, 2006. Date of issuance: April 13, 2006.
349, 351, 349 and 8 respectively. Effective date: As of the date of Effective date: As of the date of
Renewed Facility Operating License issuance, and shall be implemented issuance, and shall be implemented
Nos. NPF–35 , NPF–52, NPF–9, NPF–17, within 120 days. within 60 days.
DPR–38, DPR–47, DPR–55, and SNM– Amendment No.: 219. Amendment No.: 221.
2503: Amendments revised the Facility Operating License No. DPR–
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
Operating Licenses. 35: The amendment revised the Facility
35: The amendment revised the
Date of initial notice in Federal Operating License, Technical
Technical Specifications.
Register: December 30, 2005 (70 FR Specifications and Surveillance
77428). Requirements. Date of initial notice in Federal
The Commission’s related evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 2005 (70 FR
of the amendments is contained in a Register: December 21, 2004 (69 FR 51380).
Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 76490). The supplement dated December 6,
2006 (ML060250498). The supplements dated August 9, 2005, provided additional information
No significant hazards consideration 2005, December 29, 2005 and March 22, that clarified the application, did not
comments received: No. 2006, provided additional information expand the scope of the application as
that clarified the application, did not originally noticed, and did not change
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, expand the scope of the application as the NRC staff’s original proposed no
Columbia Generating Station, Benton originally noticed, and did not change significant hazards consideration
County, Washington
the NRC staff’s original proposed no determination. The Commission’s

Date of application for amendment: significant hazards consideration related evaluation of the amendment is
May 19, 2004. determination. contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
Brief description of amendment: The The Commission’s related evaluation April 13, 2006.
change revises Technical Specification of the amendment is contained in a No significant hazards consideration
(TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’ to Safety Evaluation dated April 12, 2006. comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Specification (TS) Section 3/4.4.5, Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Company, Docket No. 50–346, Davis- ‘‘Steam Generators,’’ to allow repair of Nos. 50–260 and 50–296, Browns Ferry
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, steam generator tubes by installing Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3, Limestone
Ottawa County, Ohio Westinghouse Alloy 800 leak limiting County, Alabama
Date of application for amendment: sleeves.
Date of Issuance: April 18, 2006. Date of application for amendments:
April 20, 2005. July 29, 2005.
Brief description of amendment: The Effective Date: As of the date of
changes revised the Technical issuance and shall be implemented Brief description of amendments: The
Specifications (TSs) to replace plant- within 60 days of issuance. proposed amendments revised the
specific position titles with generic Amendment No.: 144. technical specification testing frequency
position titles. Also, the changes deleted Renewed Facility Operating License for the surveillance requirement 3.1.4.2,
TS 6.7, ‘‘Safety Limit Violations or No. NPF–16: Amendment revised the control rod scram time testing, from 120
Protective Limit Violation,’’ and TS. days cumulative operation in MODE 1
included a change to TS 2.1.2, ‘‘Reactor Date of initial notice in Federal to 200 days cumulative operation in
Core,’’ associated with the deletion of Register: March 1, 2005 (70 FR 9993). MODE 1.
TS 6.7. Additionally, the changes The October 14, 2005, and February 13, Date of issuance: January 9, 2006.
relocated to the Davis-Besse Nuclear 2006, supplements did not affect the
Effective date: As of the date of
Power Station Updated Safety Analysis original proposed no significant hazards
issuance and to be implemented within
Report the Process Control Program determination, or expand the scope of
60 days.
requirements from TS 6.8, ‘‘Procedures the request as noticed in the Federal
Register. Amendment Nos.: 295 and 253.
and Programs,’’ and from TS 6.14,
‘‘Process Control Program (PCP).’’ The Commission’s related evaluation Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
Associated with this change, TS of the amendment is contained in a 52 and DPR–68: Amendments revised
Definition 1.30, ‘‘Process Control Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2006. the Technical Specifications.
Program,’’ was deleted. Also, TS 6.15, No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal
‘‘Offsite Dose Calculation Manual comments received: No. Register: September 27, 2005 (70 FR
(ODCM),’’ was modified to eliminate the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 56504).
requirement that changes to the ODCM Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, The Commission’s related evaluation
be reviewed and accepted by the Plant Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 of the amendment is contained in a
Operations Review Committee (PORC). and 2, Houston County, Alabama Safety Evaluation dated January 9, 2006.
These changes to administrative
requirements also eliminated the need Date of amendments request: June 1, No significant hazards consideration
to propose additional changes in the 2005, as supplemented on February 13, comments received: No.
future to plant-specific position/ 2006. TXU Generation Company LP, Docket
organizational titles. The changes are Brief Description of amendments: The Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche
consistent with NUREG–1430, amendments revise Technical Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos.
‘‘Standard Technical Specifications— Specification (TS) Section 5.5.6, ‘‘Pre- 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas
Babcock and Wilcox Plants,’’ Revision Stressed Concrete Containment Tendon
3, dated June 2004. Lastly, the changes Surveillance Program,’’ for consistency Date of amendment request: January
revised in the TSs the title ‘‘Industrial with the requirements of 10 CFR 24, 2005.
Security Plan’’ to ‘‘Physical Security 50.55a(g)(4) for components classified as Brief description of amendments: The
Plan.’’ Code Class CC. The amendments also requested amendments revise Technical
Date of issuance: February 7, 2006. delete the provisions of Surveillance Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ‘‘Auxiliary
Effective date: As of the date of Requirement 3.0.2 from this TS and Feedwater (AFW) System.’’ The change
issuance and shall be implemented delete the reporting requirements in TS would add a Note to surveillance
within 120 days. 5.6.9, ‘‘Tendon Surveillance Report.’’ requirements (SRs) 3.7.5.1, 3.7.5.3, and
Amendment No.: 272. Date of issuance: April 14, 2006. 3.7.5.4 that states, ‘‘AFW train(s) may be
Facility Operating License No. NPF–3: Effective date: As of the date of considered OPERABLE during
Amendment revised the Technical issuance and shall be implemented alignment and operation for steam
Specifications. within 90 days from the date of generator level control, if it is capable of
Date of initial notice in Federal issuance. being manually realigned to the AFW
Register: May 24, 2005 (70 FR 29795). Amendment Nos.: 172 and 165. mode of operation.’’
The Commission’s related evaluation Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: Amendments Date of issuance: April 24, 2006.
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 7, revise the Technical Specifications. Effective date: As of the date of
2006. Date of initial notice in Federal issuance and shall be implemented
No significant hazards consideration Register: June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35739). within 90 days from the date of
comments received: No. The February 13, 2006, supplemental issuance.
letter provided clarifying information Amendment Nos.: 126 and 126.
Florida Power and Light Company, et that did not change the June 1, 2005,
al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
application and the initial proposed no
Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida 87 and NPF–89: The amendments
significant hazards consideration
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of application for amendment: determination.

January 6, 2005, as supplemented The Commission’s related evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal
October 14, 2005, and February 13, of the amendments is contained in a Register: November 8, 2005 (70 FR
2006. Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2006. 67753).
Brief description of amendment: The No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration
amendment revises Technical comments received: No. comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to opportunity for public comment. If request for a hearing with respect to
Facility Operating Licenses and Final comments have been requested, it is so issuance of the amendment to the
Determination of No Significant stated. In either event, the State has subject facility operating license and
Hazards Consideration and Opportunity been consulted by telephone whenever any person whose interest may be
for a Hearing (Exigent Public possible. affected by this proceeding and who
Announcement or Emergency Under its regulations, the Commission wishes to participate as a party in the
Circumstances) may issue and make an amendment proceeding must file a written request
immediately effective, notwithstanding for a hearing and a petition for leave to
During the period since publication of
the pendency before it of a request for intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
the last biweekly notice, the
a hearing from any person, in advance petition for leave to intervene shall be
Commission has issued the following
of the holding and completion of any filed in accordance with the
amendments. The Commission has
required hearing, where it has Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for
determined for each of these
determined that no significant hazards Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10
amendments that the application for the consideration is involved. CFR Part 2. Interested persons should
amendment complies with the The Commission has applied the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
standards and requirements of the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made which is available at the Commission’s
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended a final determination that the PDR, located at One White Flint North,
(the Act), and the Commission’s rules amendment involves no significant Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville
and regulations. The Commission has hazards consideration. The basis for this Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland,
made appropriate findings as required determination is contained in the and electronically on the Internet at the
by the Act and the Commission’s rules documents related to this action. NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, Accordingly, the amendments have reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there
which are set forth in the license been issued and made effective as are problems in accessing the document,
amendment. indicated. contact the PDR Reference staff at 1
Because of exigent or emergency Unless otherwise indicated, the (800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by e-
circumstances associated with the date Commission has determined that these mail to pdr@nrc.gov. If a request for a
the amendment was needed, there was amendments satisfy the criteria for hearing or petition for leave to intervene
not time for the Commission to publish, categorical exclusion in accordance is filed by the above date, the
for public comment before issuance, its with 10 CFR 51.22. Commission or a presiding officer
usual Notice of Consideration of Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), designated by the Commission or by the
Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No no environmental impact statement or Chief Administrative Judge of the
Significant Hazards Consideration environmental assessment need be Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Determination, and Opportunity for a prepared for these amendments. If the Panel, will rule on the request and/or
Hearing. Commission has prepared an petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
For exigent circumstances, the environmental assessment under the Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Commission has either issued a Federal special circumstances provision in 10 Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
Register notice providing opportunity CFR 51.12(b) and has made a notice of a hearing or an appropriate
for public comment or has used local determination based on that assessment, order.
media to provide notice to the public in it is so indicated. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
the area surrounding a licensee’s facility For further details with respect to the petition for leave to intervene shall set
of the licensee’s application and of the action see (1) the application for forth with particularity the interest of
Commission’s proposed determination amendment, (2) the amendment to the petitioner in the proceeding, and
of no significant hazards consideration. Facility Operating License, and (3) the how that interest may be affected by the
The Commission has provided a Commission’s related letter, Safety results of the proceeding. The petition
reasonable opportunity for the public to Evaluation and/or Environmental should specifically explain the reasons
comment, using its best efforts to make Assessment, as indicated. All of these why intervention should be permitted
available to the public means of items are available for public inspection with particular reference to the
communication for the public to at the Commission’s Public Document following general requirements: (1) The
respond quickly, and in the case of Room (PDR), located at One White Flint name, address, and telephone number of
telephone comments, the comments North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
have been recorded or transcribed as Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
appropriate and the licensee has been Maryland. Publicly available records right under the Act to be made a party
informed of the public comments. will be accessible from the Agencywide to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
In circumstances where failure to act Documents Access and Management extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
in a timely way would have resulted, for System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic property, financial, or other interest in
example, in derating or shutdown of a Reading Room on the Internet at the the proceeding; and (4) the possible
nuclear power plant or in prevention of NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ effect of any decision or order which
either resumption of operation or of reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not may be entered in the proceeding on the
increase in power output up to the have access to ADAMS or if there are requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
plant’s licensed power level, the problems in accessing the documents petition must also identify the specific
Commission may not have had an located in ADAMS, contact the PDR contentions which the petitioner/
opportunity to provide for public Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209, requestor seeks to have litigated at the
comment on its no significant hazards (301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to proceeding.
consideration determination. In such pdr@nrc.gov. Each contention must consist of a

case, the license amendment has been The Commission is also offering an specific statement of the issue of law or
issued without opportunity for opportunity for a hearing with respect to fact to be raised or controverted. In
comment. If there has been some time the issuance of the amendment. Within addition, the petitioner/requestor shall
for public comment but less than 30 60 days after the date of publication of provide a brief explanation of the bases
days, the Commission may provide an this notice, the licensee may file a for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert hearing. Since the Commission has Facility Operating License No. DPR–
opinion which support the contention made a final determination that the 74: Amendment revises the Technical
and on which the petitioner intends to amendment involves no significant Specifications.
rely in proving the contention at the hazards consideration, if a hearing is Public comments requested as to
hearing. The petitioner must also requested, it will not stay the proposed no significant hazards
provide references to those specific effectiveness of the amendment. Any consideration (NSHC): No. The
sources and documents of which the hearing held would take place while the Commission’s related evaluation of the
petitioner is aware and on which the amendment is in effect. amendment, finding of emergency
petitioner intends to rely to establish A request for a hearing or a petition circumstances, state consultation, and
those facts or expert opinion. The for leave to intervene must be filed by: final NSHC determination are contained
petition must include sufficient (1) First class mail addressed to the in a safety evaluation dated April 13,
information to show that a genuine Office of the Secretary of the 2006.
dispute exists with the applicant on a Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro,
material issue of law or fact.1 Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Jr., Esquire, One Cook Place, Bridgman,
Contentions shall be limited to matters 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and MI 49106.
within the scope of the amendment Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
under consideration. The contention mail, and expedited delivery services: Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
must be one which, if proven, would Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, of May 2006.
entitle the petitioner to relief. A One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Catherine Haney,
these requirements with respect to at Attention: Rulemaking and
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
least one contention will not be Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
permitted to participate as a party. addressed to the Office of the Secretary, Regulation.
Each contention shall be given a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [FR Doc. 06–4243 Filed 5–8–06; 8:45 am]
separate numeric or alpha designation HearingDocket@nrc.gov; or (4) facsimile
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
within one of the following groups: transmission addressed to the Office of
1. Technical—primarily concerns/ the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
issues relating to technical and/or Commission, Washington, DC, NUCLEAR REGULATORY
health and safety matters discussed or Attention: Rulemakings and COMMISSION
referenced in the applications. Adjudications Staff at (301) 415–1101,
2. Environmental—primarily verification number is (301) 415–1966. Proposed License Renewal Interim
concerns/issues relating to matters A copy of the request for hearing and Staff Guidance LR–ISG–2006–01:
discussed or referenced in the petition for leave to intervene should Plant-Specific Aging Management
environmental analysis for the also be sent to the Office of the General Program for Inaccessible Areas of
applications. Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Boiling Water Reactor Mark I Steel
3. Miscellaneous—does not fall into Commission, Washington, DC 20555– Containment Drywell Shell Solicitation
one of the categories outlined above. 0001, and it is requested that copies be of Public Comment
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two transmitted either by means of facsimile
or more petitioners/requestors seek to transmission to (301) 415–3725 or by e- AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/ mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy Commission.
requestors shall jointly designate a of the request for hearing and petition ACTION: Solicitation of public comment.
representative who shall have the for leave to intervene should also be
authority to act for the petitioners/ SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory
sent to the attorney for the licensee.
requestors with respect to that Commission (NRC) is soliciting public
Nontimely requests and/or petitions
contention. If a petitioner/requestor comment on its Proposed License
and contentions will not be entertained
seeks to adopt the contention of another Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR–
absent a determination by the
sponsoring petitioner/requestor, the ISG–2006–01. This LR–ISG proposes
Commission or the presiding officer or
petitioner/requestor who seeks to adopt that applicants for license renewal for a
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
the contention must either agree that the plant with a boiling water reactor Mark
that the petition, request and/or the
sponsoring petitioner/requestor shall act I steel containment provide a plant-
contentions should be granted based on
as the representative with respect to that specific aging management program that
a balancing of the factors specified in 10
contention, or jointly designate with the addresses the potential loss of material
CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)–(viii).
sponsoring petitioner/requestor a due to corrosion in the inaccessible
representative who shall have the Indiana Michigan Power Company, areas of their Mark I steel containment
authority to act for the petitioners/ Docket No. 50–316, Donald C. Cook drywell shell for the period of extended
requestors with respect to that Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (DCCNP–2), operation.
contention. Berrien County, Michigan The NRC staff issues LR–ISGs to
Those permitted to intervene become Date of amendment request: April 10, facilitate timely implementation of the
parties to the proceeding, subject to any 2006, as supplemented on April 12, and license renewal rule and to review
limitations in the order granting leave to 13 (two letters), 2006. activities associated with a license
intervene, and have the opportunity to Description of amendment request: renewal application (LRA). Upon
participate fully in the conduct of the The amendment revised Surveillance receiving public comments, the NRC
Requirement 3.8.1.11 of the DCCNP–2 staff will evaluate the comments and
1 To the extent that the applications contain

Technical Specifications, raising the make a determination to incorporate the
attachments and supporting documents that are not diesel generator load rejection voltage comments, as appropriate. Once the
publicly available because they are asserted to NRC staff completes the LR–ISG, it will
contain safeguards or proprietary information,
test limit from 5000 volts to 5350 volts.
petitioners desiring access to this information Date of issuance: April 13, 2006. issue the LR–ISG for NRC and industry
should contact the applicant or applicant’s counsel Effective date: April 13, 2006. use. The NRC staff will also incorporate
and discuss the need for a protective order. Amendment No.: 276. the approved LR–ISG into the next

Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Notice: Operating Licenses, Amendments No Significant Hazards Considerations Biweekly Notices

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

89 / Tuesday, May 9, 2006 / Notices 26995

longer applicable because of the completion inoperable snubber, if risk is assessed

kind of accident from any accident 1. Do the proposed changes involve a

commitments. The changes to personnel Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

the NRC staff’s original proposed no determination. The Commission’s

Date of application for amendment: determination.

consideration determination. In such pdr@nrc.gov. Each contention must consist of a

1 To the extent that the applications contain

Você também pode gostar