[Federal Register: January 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 9)]
[
Notices]
[Page 1779-1783]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ja07-90]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from December 22, 2006 to January 4, 2007. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 147).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave
to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.
If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
[[Page 1780]]
with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1)
The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's
interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions
which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HearingDocket@nrc.gov;
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301,
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin.
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments revise
the technical specifications to add the FERRET Code as an approved
methodology for determining reactor coolant system pressure and
temperature limits.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change revises Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5,
``Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Pressure and Temperature Limits
Report (PTLR)'', to add the FERRET Code as an approved methodology
for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or the manner in which the plant is operated and
maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits. Therefore, the proposed
change does not significantly increase the probability of any
accident previously evaluated.
There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters,
engineered safety feature actuation setpoints, accident mitigation
capabilities, or accident analysis assumptions or inputs. The
proposed change does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased as a result
of the proposed change.
2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change incorporates the FERRET Code as an approved
methodology for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits. The
change does not impose any new or different requirements or
[[Page 1781]]
eliminate any existing requirements. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of the proposed change. Equipment important to safety will continue
to operate as designed. The change does not result in any event
previously deemed incredible being made credible. The change does
not result in adverse conditions or result in any increase in the
challenges to safety systems. Therefore, the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or different type of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed change incorporates the FERRET Code as an approved
methodology for determining RCS pressure and temperature limits. The
proposed change does not alter safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, or limiting conditions for operation. The setpoints at
which protective actions are initiated are not altered by the
proposed change.
There are no new or significant changes to the initial
conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences. The
proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the plant protective
boundaries, will not cause a release of fission products to the
public, nor will it degrade the performance of any other structures,
systems or components (SSCs) important to safety. Therefore, the
requested change will not result in a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President,
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street,
Hudson, WI 54016.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri.
Date of amendment request: August 17, 2006.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety
Limits],'' 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' 3.4.1,
RCS [reactor coolant system] Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure
from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) Limits,'' and 5.6.5, ``Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR).'' The changes would (1) relocate certain
operating cycle-specific parameters limits, including TS Figure 2.1.1-
1, ``Reactor Core Safety Limits,'' from the above TSs to the plant
COLR, (2) add two new safety limits for departure from nucleate boiling
ratio (DNBR) and peak fuel centerline temperature, and (3) add several
topical reports to TS 5.6.5 and have the reports in TS 5.6.5 cited by
only the report title and number. The TSs would state that the limits
to be met or the values of denoted parameters are specified in the
COLR. The existing TS 5.6.5 has seven core operating limits that are
listed in the specification, and this would be expanded to include the
three additional limits from TSs 2.1.1, 3.3.1, and 3.4.1. The changes
are consistent with NRC-approved Standard Technical Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2, ``Relocate TS Parameters to COLR,'' and
TSTF-363, Revision 0, ``Relocate Topical Report References in ITS
[Improved Technical Specification] 5.6.5, COLR.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since there are
no design [or equipment] changes. The design of the reactor trip
system (RTS) instrumentation and engineered safety feature actuation
system (ESFAS) instrumentation will be unaffected and these
protection systems will continue to function in a manner consistent
with the plant design basis. All design, material, and construction
standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request will
be maintained.
The proposed changes will not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) from performing their intended [safety] functions to mitigate
the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
The proposed changes are programmatic and administrative in
nature. These changes do not physically alter safety-related systems
nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform their
functions. Additional Safety Limits on the DNB [departure from
nucleate boiling] design basis and peak fuel centerline temperature
are being imposed in TS 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core Safety Limits,'' and
the Reactor Core Safety Limits figure is being relocated to the
COLR. The additional Safety Limits are consistent with the values
stated in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report for the Callaway
Plant]. The proposed changes do not, by themselves, alter any of the
relocated limits. The removal of the cycle-specific parameter limits
from the TS[s] does not eliminate existing requirements to comply
with the parameter limits. [The value of the limits is relocated to
the COLR, but the requirement to follow that limit remains in the
TSs by the reference to the limits or values in the COLR, and the
values of the limits are not being changed by this amendment.] TS
5.6.5.b continues to ensure that the analytical methods used to
determine the core operating limits meet NRC reviewed and approved
methodologies [by the requirement stated in TS 5.6.5.b that ``the
analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits shall
be those previously reviewed and approved by the NRC'']. TS 5.6.5.c,
[which is] unchanged by this application, will continue to ensure
that applicable limits of the safety analyses are met [by continuing
to state this as a requirement in the TSs].
The proposed changes to reference only the Topical Report number
and title do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to
determine core operating limits that have been reviewed and approved
by the NRC. [This remains a requirement stated in TS 5.6.5.b.] This
[proposed] method of referencing Topical Reports would allow the use
of current [NRC-approved] Topical Reports to support [the] limits in
the COLR without [the licensee] having to submit an amendment to the
operating license. Implementation of revisions to Topical Reports
for Callaway Plant applications would still be reviewed in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) and, where required,
receive prior NRC review and approval. [The criteria in the
regulation governing changes to the plant without NRC approval, 10
CFR 50.59, would have to be met before the licensee could use a
later version of an NRC-approved Topical Report that is listed in TS
5.6.5.b.]
The cycle-specific parameter limits being transferred from the
TS[s] to the COLR will continue to be controlled under existing
programs and procedures. The FSAR accident analyses will continue to
be examined with respect to future changes in the cycle-specific
parameters using NRC reviewed and approved reload design
methodologies [(i.e., NRC reviewed and approved Topical Reports)],
ensuring that the evaluation of new reload designs under 10 CFR
50.59 is bounded by previously accepted analyses.
All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be
met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect
the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the FSAR. The applicable radiological
dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
[The proposed changes do not alter any requirements in the TSs,
but they do add two
[[Page 1782]]
new safety limits to TS 2.2.1. The changes also relocate certain
limits or parameter values from the TSs to the COLR; however, these
limits and values are still required to be met and be determined
from NRC-approved methodologies that apply to the Callaway Plant.
Therefore, there are no changes to accident analyses previously
evaluated and described in the FSAR.]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. [Do] the proposed change[s] create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes
in the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its
safety function. Th[ese] change[s] will not affect the normal method
of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment
performance requirements will be affected. The proposed changes will
not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this
amendment. [No equipment is being added to the plant by the
amendment.]
The proposed amendment will not alter the design or performance
of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation
System, or Solid State Protection System used in the plant
protection systems.
Relocation of cycle-specific parameter limits has no influence
on, nor does it contribute in any way to, the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident. The relocated cycle-specific
parameter limits will continue to be calculated using the NRC
reviewed and approved methodologies. The proposed changes do not
alter assumptions made in the safety analyses. Operation within the
core operating limits will continue to be observed.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. [Do] the proposed change[s] involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no
impacts on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling
ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor (FQ),
nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (F[Delta]H), loss of
coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local
power density, or any other margin of safety. The applicable
radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to
be met.
The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillances or alter
the frequency of surveillances [(i.e., the surveillance test
intervals)] required by the Technical Specifications. The nominal
RTS and ESFAS trip setpoints will remain unchanged. None of the
acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed.
The development of cycle-specific parameter limits for future
reload designs will continue to conform to NRC reviewed and approved
methodologies, and will be performed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 to
assure that plant operation [is] within [these] cycle-specific
parameter limits.
The proposed changes will have no impact on the radiological
consequences of a design basis accident.
[The proposed changes do not alter any requirements in the TSs.
They relocate certain limits or parameter values from the TSs to the
COLR; however, these limits and values are still required to be met
and be determined from NRC-approved methodologies that apply to the
Callaway Plant.]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: David Terao.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin.
Date of application for amendment: September 25, 2006.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2.a, ``ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Code Class 1, 2, 3, and MC Components and Supports.'' The
revised TS 4.2.a.2, references the ASME Code for Operation and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants.
Date of issuance: December 14, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 189
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (71 FR
62308).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 14, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
DukePower Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Date of application for amendments: December 20, 2005, as
supplemented May 4 and August 31, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the McGuire
1 and
[[Page 1783]]
2 licensing basis to adopt a selective implementation of the
alternative source term radiological analysis methodology. The
amendments also revised Technical Specification 3.9.4, ``Containment
Penetrations.''
Date of issuance: December 22, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 236, 218
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 24, 2006 (71 FR
50105)
The supplements dated May 4 and August 31, 2006, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374,
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois.
Date of application for amendments: December 9, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated August 16, August 24, September 13, and
October 12, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments adopt Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS)
Change Traveler 360 (TSTF-360), Revision 1, ``DC Electric Rewrite.''
The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.8.4, ``DC
Sources-Operating,'' TS 3.8.5, ``DC Sources-Shutdown,'' TS 3.8.6,
``Battery Cell Parameters,'' and adds a new TS Section 5.5.14,
``Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program.''
Date of issuance: December 19, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 179/165.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (70 FR
19115)
The August 16, August 24, September 13, and October 12, 2006
supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC
staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards
consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia.
Date of application for amendment: May 30, 2006, as supplemented by
letter dated June 30, 2006.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendments would
relocate the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard
being used to test the total particulate concentration of the stored
fuel oil to the Technical Specification (TS) Bases. This proposed
change is described in TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler
TSTF-374, Rev. 0, ``Revision to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for
Diesel Fuel Oil.'' In addition, the licensee has proposed to use a
``water and sediment test'' instead of the ``clear and bright'' test
provided in TSTF-374.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2006.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 249, 229.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2006 (71 FR
46941)
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2006.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2007.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John W. Lubinski,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-321 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P