Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 59969

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–499] 

STP Nuclear Operating Company; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC, the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating 

Company (the licensee), for operation of 

South Texas Project (STP), Unit 2 

located in Matagorda County, Texas. 

The proposed amendment would 

change Technical Specification 4.4.4.2 

to not require block valve testing should 

the block valve be required to be closed 

in accordance with the required actions 

of the associated limiting condition for 

operation. 

Elevated temperatures were observed 

on the pressurizer discharge header due 

to minor power operated relief valve 

(PORV) 655A leakage during startup 

from 2RE10. Following valve reseating 

attempts, temperatures were elevated 

(compared to historical values), but 

remained below the alarm setpoint. 

When the alarm setpoint was reached 

on September 7, 2004, the PORV block 

valves were closed in accordance with 

plant procedures and troubleshooting 

efforts were initiated to determine the 

cause. Subsequent testing and 

investigation confirmed that PORV 

655A was leaking-by, and as a result of 

the leak-by PORV 655A momentarily 

lifted when its associated block valve 

was re-opened. It should be noted that 

due to the PORV design (pilot-assisted) 

and the fact that the PORV leak-by had 

allowed the piping between the block 

valve and the PORV to depressurize 

during the troubleshooting time period, 

the momentary lift of the PORV was not 

an unexpected occurrence. Further 

engineering evaluation was initiated to 

determine whether PORV 655A 

continued to remain Operable. This 

engineering analysis concluded that 

PORV 655A was operable, however if 

the PORV block valve were to remain 

open and the PORV to continue to leakby, the resulting elevated temperatures 

would degrade the Equipment 

Qualification of the PORVs solenoid and 

switch cover gaskets before the 

projected end of the current Unit 2 

operating cycle. Therefore, the decision 

was made on September 9, 2004, to 

declare PORV 655A inoperable due to 

excessive seat leakage, and to close the 

associated block valve in accordance 

with TS 3.4.4 Action a. 

The quarterly surveillance test for the 

PORV 655A block valve, performed in 

accordance with SR 4.4.4.2, requires 

operating the block valve through one 

complete cycle of full travel. Because 

PORV 655A is a pilot-assisted valve, it 

is expected that the PORV will lift 

momentarily during the block valve 

stroke. Although the PORV is expected 

to reseat, performance of this 

surveillance represents an unnecessary 

challenge to the RCS pressure boundary. 

The SR 4.4.4.2 surveillance test for the 

PORV 655A block valve is due to be 

performed on September 28, 2004, and 

the associated grace period expires on 

October 21, 2004. 

Entry into the required action of TS 

3.4.4 could not have been reasonably 

foreseen or anticipated. Therefore, 

STPNOC requests approval of this 

license amendment application on an 

exigent basis by October 21, 2004 (the 

block valve surveillance due date, 

including grace period) in order to avoid 

unnecessary operation of the PORV. 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act) and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

Pursuant to 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) for amendments to be granted 

under exigent circumstances, the NRC 

staff must determine that the 

amendment request involves 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. 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 block valve for the pressurizer power 

operated relief valve is not a potential 

accident initiator. Therefore, not requiring a 

surveillance of the block valve while it is 

being used to isolate its associated power 

operated relief valve will not increase the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated. Not requiring the surveillance of 

the block valve may slightly reduce the 

probability of a loss of coolant accident from 

a stuck open power operated relief valve 

since it will eliminate the challenge to the 

power operated relief valve from the pressure 

transient that results from cycling the block 

valve. 

If pressurizer spray is not available or is 

not effective, either one of the two 

pressurizer power operated relief valves may 

be manually actuated to depressurize the 

reactor coolant system to mitigate the 

consequences of a steam generator tube 

rupture. Not performing the surveillance on 

the block valve is not relevant to the primary 

system for depressurizing the reactor coolant 

system (pressurizer spray). The block valves 

have been demonstrated by operating 

experience to be reliable and are also subject 

to the motor-operated valve testing program. 

Consequently, the proposed change does not 

significantly reduce the confidence that the 

block valve can be opened to permit manual 

actuation of the power operated relief valve 

to depressurize the reactor coolant system to 

mitigate an accident. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the 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 change only affects the 

performance of the surveillance test for the 

block valve and does not introduce any 

operating configurations not previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, the STPNOC concludes the 

proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the surveillance 

requirement for the block valve for the 

pressurizer power operated relief valve does 

not affect the assumptions in any accident 

analyses. There are no changes in plant 

performance parameters associated with the 

proposed change to the surveillance 

requirement for the block valve. 

Therefore, the STPNOC concludes the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 14 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of the 14-day notice period. 

59970 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 

However, should circumstances change 

during the notice period, such that 

failure to act in a timely way would 

result, for example, in derating or 

shutdown of the facility, the 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before the expiration of the 

14-day notice period, provided that its 

final determination is that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The final 

determination will consider all public 

and State comments received. Should 

the Commission take this action, it will 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

of 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, 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 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 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/requestor is aware and on 

which the petitioner/requestor intends 

to rely to establish those facts or expert 

opinion. The petitioner/requestor must 

provide sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant on a material issue of law or 

fact. Contentions shall be limited to 

matters within the scope of the 

amendment under consideration. The 

contention must be one which, if 

proven, would entitle the petitioner/

requestor to relief. A petitioner/

requestor who fails to satisfy these 

requirements with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene, and have the opportunity to 

participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing. 

If a hearing is requested, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to decide 

when the hearing is held. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves no significant hazards 

consideration, the Commission may 

issue the amendment and make it 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the request for a hearing. Any hearing 

held would take place after issuance of 

the amendment. If the final 

determination is that the amendment 

request involves a significant hazards 

consideration, any hearing held would 

take place before the issuance of any 

amendment. 

Non-timely 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). 

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 email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be 

sent to Mr. John E. Matthews, Morgan, 

Lewis & Bokius, LLP, 1111 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, attorney for the 

licensee. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2004 / Notices 59971

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated September 30, 2004, 

which is available for public inspection 

at the Commission’s 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 ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm.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 30th day 

of September 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project 

Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–22402 Filed 10–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[DOCKET NO. 050–213] 

Notice of Availability of Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact For Exemption From 

Certain Control and Tracking 

Requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix G, Section III.E for 

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power 

Company, East Hampton, CT

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theodore B. Smith, Project Manager, 

Decommissioning Directorate, Division 

of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Rockville, Maryland, 20852. Telephone: 

(301) 415–6721; fax number: (301) 415–

5397; e-mail: tbs1@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) is considering the issuance of an 

exemption from certain requirements in 

10 CFR Part 20 for Connecticut Yankee 

Atomic Power Company to relax certain 

control tracking requirements related to 

transportation of low-level radioactive 

waste from the Haddam Neck Plant 

(HNP) in East Hampton, Connecticut. 

The HNP site consists of one 

permanently shutdown nuclear reactor 

facility located near East Hampton, 

Connecticut. Inherent to the 

decommissioning process, large 

volumes of slightly contaminated rubble 

and debris are generated and require 

disposal. On June 1, 2004, Connecticut 

Yankee Atomic Power Company 

(CYAPCO, the licensee) requested an 

exemption from the requirements in 10 

CFR Part 20, Appendix G Section III.E 

to investigate and file a report to the 

NRC if shipments of low-level 

radioactive waste are not acknowledged 

by the intended recipient within 20 

days after transfer to the shipper. This 

exemption would extend the time 

period that can elapse during shipments 

of low-level radioactive waste before the 

licensee is required to investigate and 

file a report to the NRC from 20 days to 

35 days. The exemption request is based 

on a statistical analysis of the historical 

data of low-level radioactive waste 

shipment times from the licensee’s site 

to the disposal site using truck or 

combination truck/rail shipping 

methods. NRC has prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

support of this amendment in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 

CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC 

has concluded that a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate. The exemption will be 

issued following the publication of this 

Notice. 

II. EA Summary 

The purpose of the proposed action is 

to authorize an exemption to extend the 

20-day investigation and reporting 

requirements for shipments of low-level 

radioactive waste to 35 days from the 

licensee’s East Hampton, Connecticut 

facility. Specifically, since 2003, the 

licensee has made over 40 shipments of 

low-level radioactive waste as part of 

the decommissioning efforts at the 

facility. MHF Logistical Solutions 

(MHF) is the carrier company used by 

the licensee to perform these shipments. 

MHF has a tracking system that 

monitors the progress of the shipments 

from their originating point at HNP until 

they arrive at their final destination at 

Envirocare in Clive, Utah. The 

shipments are made by either truck or 

combination truck/rail. According to the 

licensee, the transportation time alone 

by either truck or combination truck/rail 

took over 21 days on average, with one 

shipment taking 25 days to arrive at 

Envirocare. 

In addition to this time, 

administrative procedures at Envirocare 

and mail delivery could add up to 4 

additional days. Based on historical data 

and estimates of the remaining waste at 

HNP, the licensee could have to perform 

over 400 investigations and reports to 

the NRC during the next three years, if 

the 20-day shipping criteria is 

maintained. The licensee affirms that 

the low-level radioactive waste 

shipments are tracked throughout 

transportation until they arrive at their 

intended destination. The licensee 

believes that the need to investigate, 

trace, and report to the NRC on the 

shipment of low-level radioactive waste 

packages not reaching their destination 

within 20 days does not serve the 

underlying purpose of the rule and it is 

not necessary. As a result, the licensee 

states that granting this exemption will 

not result in an undue hazard to life or 

property. 

The staff has prepared the EA in 

support of the proposed license 

amendment. The NRC has examined the 

licensee’s proposed exemption request 

and concluded that it is procedural and 

administrative in nature. There are no 

significant radiological environmental 

impacts associated with this exemption, 

and it will not result in significant 

nonradiological environmental impacts. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the EA, NRC has 

concluded that there are no significant 

environmental impacts from the 

proposed amendment and has 

determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for exemption 

and supporting documentation, are 

available electronically at the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room at http://

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this site, you can access the NRC’s 

Agencywide Document Access and 

Management System (ADAMS), which 

provides text and image files of NRC’s 

public documents. The ADAMS 

accession numbers for the documents 

related to this notice are: (1) The 

licensee’s exemption request letter 

dated June 1, 2004, is ML041680573, 

and (2) the EA is ML042370633. If you 

do not have access to ADAMS or if there 

are problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS, contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–

415–4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s PDR, O 1 F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR