Notices. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

5,719 words·~26 min read·/register/2006/04/14/06-3594

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-271-OLA; ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station); Notice of Hearing and of Opportunity To Make Oral or Written Limited Appearance Statements Concerning Proposed Uprate April 10, 2006. Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Lester S.

Rubenstein. This proceeding concerns the September 10, 2003 application of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy), for an amendment to the operating license for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Windham County, Vermont. Entergy seeks a license amendment authorizing it to increase the maximum power level of the plant from 1593 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 1912 MWt and to modify associated technical specifications of the license (collectively referred to as an “uprate”). 1 This Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice of two matters. First, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.315(a), the Board will entertain oral limited appearance statements from members of the public regarding the requested uprate. The limited appearance statement sessions will be held on June 26 and 27, 2006 in Brattleboro, Vermont. Second, pursuant to 10 CFR part 2, subpart L, the Board will convene an oral evidentiary hearing to receive evidence and to question witnesses concerning the admitted contentions. The evidentiary hearing will be held during the weeks of September 11, and October 16, 2006, at specific times and locations to be determined. 1 Commission regulations permit the NRC Staff to approve a license amendment and to authorize the licensee to implement the action ( *e.g.* , the uprate), *prior* to the adjudicatory hearing *if* the NRC Staff determines that the amendment involves no “significant hazard considerations.” *See* 10 CFR 2.1202(a). That is what has happened in this case. On March 2, 2006, after finding that there are no significant hazard considerations associated with the Vermont Yankee uprate, the NRC Staff approved Entergy's request for the license amendment. *See* 71 FR 11682 (March 8, 2006). Entergy has already begun to implement the uprate. However, the NRC Staff decision shall have no effect on the responsibility and authority of this Board to rule on the validity of the objections raised by the intervenors herein. As the Commission recently explained, “If the Board determines after full adjudication that the license amendment should not have been granted, it may be revoked (or conditioned).” CLI-06-08, 63 NRC_, _ (slip op. at 3) (March 3, 2006). I. Background and Scope of Proceeding On July 1, 2004, the Commission issued a notice of opportunity for a hearing on Entergy's license amendment request. 69 FR 39976 (July 1, 2004). Two requests for hearing and intervention petitions were filed—one by the Department of Public Service of the State of Vermont (State) and the other by the New England Coalition (NEC). Each sought, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309, to interpose various contentions challenging the uprate application. The petitions were referred to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, consisting of Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Lester S. Rubenstein, and Alex S. Karlin, to preside over this uprate proceeding. 69 FR 56797 (September 22, 2004). On October 21 and 22, 2004, the Board conducted an initial prehearing conference in Brattleboro, Vermont, and on November 22, 2004, the Board found that the State and NEC had each established the requisite standing to intervene in this proceeding and that each had submitted at least one admissible contention concerning the Entergy application. LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548 (2004). At the present time four admitted contentions define the scope of this uprate proceeding and thus the appropriate scope of any limited appearance statements. The four contentions are as follows: *State Contention 1:* Entergy has claimed credit for containment overpressure in demonstrating the adequacy of ECCS pumps for plant events including a loss of coolant accident in violation of draft General Design Criteria 44 and 52 and therefore Entergy has failed to demonstrate that the proposed uprate will provide adequate protection for public health and safety as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). *State Contention 2:* Because of the current level of uncertainty of the calculation which the Applicant uses to demonstrate the adequacy of ECCS pumps, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the use of containment overpressure to provide the necessary net positive suction head for ECCS pumps will provide adequate protection for the public health and safety as required by 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3). *NEC Contention 3:* The license amendment should not be approved unless Large Transient Testing is a condition of the Extended Power Uprate. 2 2 The first three contentions are specified at LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548, 580 (2004). *NEC New Contention 4:* The Entergy Vermont Yankee [ENVY] license application (including all supplements) for an extended power uprate of 20% over rated capacity is not in conformance with the plant specific original licensing basis and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S, paragraph I(a), and/or 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, because it does not provide analyses that are adequate, accurate, and complete in all material respects to demonstrate that the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Alternate Cooling System [ACS] in its entirety, in its actual physical condition (or in the actual physical condition ENVY will effectuate prior to commencing operation at EPU), will be able to withstand the effects of an earthquake and other natural phenomena without loss of capability to perform its safety functions in service at the requested increased plant power level. 3 3 This contention is specified at LBP-05-32, 62 NRC 813, 827 (2005). II. Notice of Limited Appearance Statement Sessions A. Date, Time, and Location of Oral Limited Appearance Statement Sessions The oral limited appearance sessions will be on the following dates, at the specified location and times: 1. *Date:* Monday, June 26, 2006. *Time:* 6:30 pm. to 10:30 p.m. *Location:* Latchis Theatre, 50 Main Street, Brattleboro, Vermont. 2. *Date:* Tuesday, June 27, 2006. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. *Location:* Same as Session 1 above. B. Participation Guidelines for Oral Limited Appearance Statements Any person who is not already a party will be permitted to make an oral statement setting forth his or her position on matters of concern related to this uprate proceeding. 4 The jurisdiction of this Board and the scope of this proceeding is limited to the uprate. Limited appearance statements will be transcribed but are not under oath or affirmation and do not constitute testimony or evidence. The purpose of limited appearance statements is to allow members of the public to alert the Board and the parties to areas relating to the uprate and the admitted contentions in which evidence may need to be adduced, and to assist the Board in its consideration of these issues. 5 4 The parties to this proceeding are Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the NRC Staff, the Department of Public Service of the State of Vermont, and the New England Coalition. 5 *See* 10 CFR 2.315(a); *Iowa Electric Light & Power Co.* (Duane Arnold Energy Center), ALAB-108, 6 AEC 195, 196 n.4 (1973); 10 CFR part 2, Appendix A, § III(b) (2004), *deleted* Final Rule, *Changes to Adjudicatory Process,* 69 FR 2182, 2274 (January 14, 2004). Oral limited appearance statements will be entertained during the hours specified above, or such lesser time as may be necessary to accommodate the speakers who are present. 6 If all scheduled and unscheduled speakers present at a session have made a presentation, the Board reserves the right to terminate the session before the ending times listed above. 6 Any members of the public who plan to attend either the evidentiary hearings or the limited appearance sessions are advised that security measures may be employed at the entrance to the hearing facility, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. In addition, no signs are permitted at the evidentiary hearing. However, signs no larger than 18″ by 18″ will be permitted during the limited appearance sessions, but may not be attached to sticks, held up, or moved about in the rooms. *Cf. Policy Statement on Enhancing Public Participation in NRC Meetings,* 67 FR 36,920, 36,923 (May 28, 2002). In order to allow all interested persons an opportunity to address the Board, the time allotted for each oral limited appearance statement normally will be no more than five minutes, and may be further limited, depending on the number of written requests to make an oral statement that are submitted in accordance with section C below and/or the number of persons present at the designated times. At the outset of each statement, the speaker should identify himself or herself and specify if they have any affiliation (such as employment, consultancy, or membership) with any of the parties. C. Submitting a Request to Make an Oral Limited Appearance Statement Persons wishing to make an oral statement who have submitted a timely written request to do so will be given priority over those who have not filed such a request. To be considered timely, a written request to make an oral statement must either be mailed, faxed, or sent by e-mail so as to be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday, June 20, 2006. The request must specify the session (Monday evening, Tuesday morning, or Tuesday afternoon) during which the requester wishes to make an oral statement. Based on its review of the requests received by June 20, 2006, the Licensing Board reserves the right to cancel or shorten any of the sessions (Monday evening, Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon) due to a lack of adequate public interest. Written requests to make an oral statement should be submitted to: Mail: Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Fax:

(301)415-1101 (verification

(301)415-1966). E-mail: *hearingdocket@nrc.gov.* In addition, using the same method of service, a copy of the written request to make an oral statement should be sent to the Chairman of this Licensing Board as follows: Mail: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, c/o: Jonathan Rund, Esq., Law Clerk, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3 E2C, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. Fax:

(301)415-5599 (verification

(301)415-6094). E-mail: *jmr3@nrc.gov* and *ksv@nrc.gov.* D. Written Limited Appearance Statements (In Lieu of Oral Statements) A written limited appearance statement may be submitted to the Board regarding this proceeding at any time. Such statements should be sent to the Office of the Secretary using the methods prescribed above, with a copy to the Licensing Board Chairman. A person who has already filed a written limited appearance statement in this matter 7 is not required to resubmit it, but should notify the Board, as specified above, if he or she wishes to make an oral statement during the June sessions. 7 *See* Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Scheduling Prehearing Conference Call and Oral Argument) at 2-3 (October 1, 2004) (unpublished). III. Notice of Evidentiary Hearing In addition to the oral limited appearance statement sessions discussed above, the public is notified that this Board subsequently will conduct an evidentiary hearing on the four contentions admitted in this proceeding. The hearing will be governed by the “Informal Hearing Procedures” set forth in 10 CFR part, subparts C and L, *see* 10 CFR 2.300-2.390., 2.1200-2.1213, and is scheduled to take place during the weeks of September 11, and October 16, 2006. Although the precise dates and locations of the evidentiary hearings are yet to be determined, it is the Commission's policy and practice to hold them in the general vicinity of the site of the nuclear facility that is the subject of the proceeding, so that members of the public may attend. 8 *See* 10 CFR 2.328-2.329, 2.331. However, it appears that some of the contentions in this proceeding involve some proprietary commercial information, which would require that those portions of the evidentiary hearing be closed to the general public, with only the authorized parties able to attend. 9 The current plan is to hold the evidentiary hearings in Vermont, if possible, except for those portions of the proceeding that may need to be closed to the public, which may be held at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The Board will issue a subsequent order establishing the exact dates, times, and locations for the evidentiary hearing and copies of these rulings will be available to the public at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and through the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov.* 8 *See Exelon Generation Co., LLC* (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Denying Motion Requesting Reconsideration of Initial Prehearing Conference Location) at 2-3 (April 5, 2004) (unpublished); 10 CFR part 2, Appendix A, § I(a) (2004), *deleted* Final Rule, *Changes to Adjudicatory Process,* 69 FR 2182, 2274 (January 14, 2004). 9 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, portions of a hearing may be closed to the public if the matters at issue involve the discussion of confidential or legally protected information. IV. Availability of Documentary Information Regarding the Proceeding Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room or electronically from the publicly available records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR reference staff by telephone at

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* V. Scheduling Information Updates Any updated/revised scheduling information regarding the evidentiary hearing and limited appearance sessions can be found on the NRC Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm* or by calling

(800)368-5642, extension 5036, or

(301)415-5036. It is so *ordered.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, April 10, 2006. For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 10 10 Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to the representatives for

(1)licensees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;

(2)intervenors Vermont Department of Public Service and New England Coalition of Brattleboro, Vermont; and

(3)the Staff. Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Administrative Judge. [FR Doc. E6-5582 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to the Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E/the licensee) for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2

(DCPP)located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposed amendments would delete Section 2F, “Antitrust” and Appendix C, “Antitrust Conditions,” from the facility operating licenses. According to the application, the antitrust license conditions impose what are known as the “Stanislaus Commitments,” which were derived from the licensing process for the proposed, but never completed, Stanislaus Nuclear Plant. The licensee indicates that, as reflected in a 2003 Commission decision (which subsequently was vacated), it appears to PG&E that there is no legal authority in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA or Act), or in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) regulations, for the NRC to continue to impose these conditions absent PG&E's consent. Moreover, in light of changes in the electric industry, NRC imposition of these conditions and the prospect of NRC enforcement of these conditions are no longer necessary to serve their original intended purpose. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR), § 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments 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. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed amendments are administrative changes that do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the amendments do not involve any change in the design, configuration, or operation of the plant. All limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings and safety limits specified in the technical specifications

(TS)remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The proposed amendments do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because: • The amendments do not involve any change in the design, configuration, or operation of the plant. The current plant design and design bases will remain the same. The current plant safety analyses remain complete and accurate in addressing the design basis events and in analyzing plant response and consequences. • The limiting conditions for operations, limiting safety system settings and safety limits specified in TS are not affected by the change. • The amendments do not introduce a new mode of plant operation or new accident precursors, do not involve any physical alterations to plant configurations, or make changes to system set points that could initiate a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. The proposed amendments do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because: • The amendments do not involve any change in the design, configuration, or operation of the plant. The change does not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or their design and licensing bases. • The amendments do not affect plant safety margins that are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety system settings and safety limits specified in TS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendments 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, Rules and Directives 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for 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 amendments to the subject facility operating licenses 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 or a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions 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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/* . If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 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 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 amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments. 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 amendments. 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(c)(1)(i)-(viii). 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 or petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Richard F. Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120, the attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated January 19, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 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/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Alan B. Wang, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-5595 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362] Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company, the City of Riverside, California and the City of Anaheim, California, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix G for Facility Operating License No. NPF-10 and NPF-15, issued to Southern California Edison (the licensee), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 (SONGS 2 and 3), located in San Diego County, California. Therefore, as provided by 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.33, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action By letter dated January 28, 2005, the licensee submitted a license amendment request where, among other changes, the licensee requested the use of an alternate methodology for calculating the stress intensity factor K Im due to internal pressure loading. As required by the safety evaluation on topical report Combustion Engineering

(CE)Topical Report NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, dated March 16, 2001, the licensee, by its supplement dated January 12, 2006, included a request for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G for pressure temperature (P-T) limits since the alternate methodology applies the CE Nuclear Steam Supply System method for calculating K Im stress intensity values. The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain requirements of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 to allow the application of the methodology in CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, “The Development of a RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature Limits Report for the Removal of P-T Limits and LTOP [Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection] Setpoints from the Technical Specifications,” for the calculation of flaw stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loadings (K Im ). The Need for the Proposed Action In the associated exemption, the staff has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule, based on the alternative methodology proposed in the licensee's amendment request. The proposed action would revise the currently-approved methodology for P-T limit calculations to incorporate the methodology approved for use in CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6. The topical report allows the use of an alternate methodology to calculate the flaw stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loadings (K Im ). The exemption is needed because the methodology in CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, could not be shown to be conservative with respect to the methodology for the determination of K Im provided in Editions and Addenda of ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, through the 1995 Edition and 1996 Addenda (the latest Edition and Addenda of the ASME Code which had been incorporated into 10 CFR 50.55a at the time of the staff's review of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6). Therefore, along with the supplement dated January 12, 2006, the licensee submitted an exemption request, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.60, to apply the K Im calculational methodology of CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, as part of the SONGS 2 and 3 pressure temperature limit report

(PTLR)methodology. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would provide an adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the reactor pressure vessel at SONGS 2 and 3. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption to Appendix G, which will allow the use of the methodology in Topical Report CE NPSD-683-A, Revision 6, to calculate the flaw stress intensity factors due to internal pressure loadings (K Im ), that will be issued in a future letter to the licensee. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the SONGS 2 and 3 dated May 12, 1981. Agencies and Persons Consulted On March 28, 2006, the staff consulted with the California State official, Steve Hsu of the Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's exemption letter dated January 28, 2005, as supplemented by letter dated January 12, 2006. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. N. Kalyanam, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 06-3594 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]

Connections17 off-index

17 references not yet in our index

10 CFR 2.315(a)
10 CFR 2
10 CFR 2.1202(a)
10 CFR 2.309
10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)
10 CFR 50
10 CFR 100
10 CFR 2.300-2
10 CFR 2.328-2
10 CFR 2.390
10 CFR 50.91(a)
10 CFR 50.92(c)
10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)
10 CFR 51.21
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)
10 CFR 50.55
10 CFR 50.60

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Cite10 CFR 2.315(a)

Cite10 CFR 2

Cite10 CFR 2.1202(a)

Cite10 CFR 2.309

Cite10 CFR 50.57(a)(3)

Cites 17 · showing 5Cited by 0 across 0 sources