78056 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Notices 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2

[Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318] 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Renewed 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 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 

No. DPR–53 and No. DPR–69, issued to 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. 

(the licensee), for operation of the 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2, located in Lusby, MD. 

The proposed amendments would 

add references to the list of approved 

core operating limits analytical methods 

in Technical Specification 5.6.5.b for 

Calvert Cliffs Unit Nos. 1 and 2. 

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), Section 50.92, this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involved 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) 

involved 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 not significant 

hazards consideration, which is 

presented below:

1. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment[s] would not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed amendment[s] adds 

references to Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. 

This Technical Specification lists methods 

that are used to determine core operating 

limits. These proposed additional references 

will allow the use of the Westinghouse 

nuclear physics codes and a burnable 

neutron absorber material at Calvert Cliffs 

Nuclear Power Plant. 

The proposed additional references will 

allow the use of the Westinghouse nuclear 

physics codes PARAGON, PHOENIX–P, and 

ANC. These Westinghouse codes will be used 

for the design of reload cores and for safety 

evaluation of reload cores. Benchmarking has 

shown that results from these nuclear 

physics codes are essentially the same as 

those obtained from the current DIT/ROCS 

code systems. These codes will not increase 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident because plant systems will not be 

operated outside of design limits, no different 

equipment will be operated, and system 

interfaces will not change. 

The use of these computer codes will not 

increase the consequences of an accident 

because Limiting Conditions for Operation 

(LCOs) will continue to restrict operation to 

within the regions that provides acceptable 

results, and Reactor Protective System (RPS) 

trip setpoints will restrict plant transients so 

that the consequences of accidents will be 

acceptable. Also, the consequences of the 

accidents will be calculated using NRC 

accepted methodologies. 

These proposed additional references to 

Technical Specification 5.6.5.b will allow the 

use of the burnable neutron absorber material 

Zirconium Diboride. Zirconium Diboride 

absorbs neutrons, which reduces the thermal 

flux and power in the region with the 

Zirconium Diboride. Neutron absorption by 

Zirconium Diboride produces helium gas that 

is released into the fuel rod plenum. The 

effect of this helium production is taken into 

account in the fuel design and safety 

evaluations using codes reviewed and 

approved by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Implementation of Zirconium Diboride 

may result in the peak most positive 

moderator temperature coefficient occurring 

after beginning of cycle. The core burnup 

characteristic is well understood as a result 

of extensive industry experience. Positive 

moderator temperature coefficient at the 

beginning of cycle is also within operational 

experience at Calvert Cliffs and as such, do 

not represent a significant change in the 

operation of the plant. 

The proposed additional Technical 

Specification references are not accident 

initiators. The assumed accident initiators 

are not changed by the introduction of 

proposed additional Technical Specification 

references. Therefore, operation of the facility 

in accordance with the proposed 

amendment[s] will not involve a significant 

increase in the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated.

The use of the proposed methods will not 

significantly impact the fission product 

inventory and transport assumptions in the 

current licensing basis analyses. Therefore, 

the radiological consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated will not increase. 

The use of the proposed methods will not 

increase the consequences of an accident 

because Limiting Conditions for Operation 

will continue to restrict operation to within 

the regions that provide acceptable results, 

and Reactor Protective system trip setpoints 

will restrict plant transients so that the 

consequences of accidents will not exceed 

the safety analysis acceptance criteria. 

Therefore, the proposed Technical 

Specification changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment[s] would not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

These proposed additional references will 

allow the use of the Westinghouse nuclear 

physics codes PARAGON, PHOENIX-P, and 

ANC. These codes will be used to confirm 

the values of selected cycle-specific reactor 

physics parameter limits from the Technical 

Specifications and the Core Operating Limits 

Report. These codes will not change the 

physical plant or the modes of operation. 

Benchmaking has shown that results from 

these codes are essentially the same as those 

optioned from the current DIT/ROCS code 

package. The plant systems will not be 

operated outside of design limits, no different 

equipment will be operated, and system 

interfaces will not change. This code package 

will not create a new or different accident 

from those previously evaluated. 

The proposed amendments also add the 

Zirconium Diboride burnable absorber 

topical report to the Technical Specification 

list of the approved topical reports used to 

generate the values in the Core Operating 

Limits Report. With this burnable absorber, 

the plant systems will not operate outside of 

design limits, no different equipment will be 

operated, and system interfaces will not 

change. This burnable absorber will not 

create a new or different accident from those 

previously evaluated. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed amendment[s] 

would not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated. 

3. Operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment[s] would not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Safety limits ensure that specified 

acceptable fuel design limits are not 

exceeded during steady state operation, 

normal operational transients, and 

anticipated operational occurrences. All fuel 

limits and design criteria will be met based 

on the approved methodologies defined in 

the topical reports. The RPS in combination 

with all LCOs, will continue to prevent any 

anticipated combination of transient 

conditions for Reactor Coolant System 

temperature, pressure, and thermal power 

level that would result in a violation of the 

safety limits. 

The reload safety analyses determine the 

LCOs settings and RPS setpoints that 

establish the initial conditions and trip 

setpoints. These conditions and setpoints 

ensure that the Design Basis Events 

(postulated accident and anticipated 

operational occurrences) analyzed in the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

produced acceptable results. 

The proposed amendment[s] add 

references to Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. 

This Technical Specification lists methods 

that are used to determine core operating 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Notices 78057

limits. These proposed additional references 

will allow the use of the Westinghouse 

computer codes, PARAGON, PHOENIX-P, 

and ANC, and a burnable neutron absorber 

material Zirconium Diboride at Calvert Cliffs 

Nuclear Power Plant. These references were 

previously reviewed and approved by [the] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Therefore, the proposed changes will 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 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, 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 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 proceedings, 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/petition’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 

proceedings; and (4) the possible effect 

of any decision or order which may be 

entered in the proceedings on the 

requestor/petitioner’s interest. The 

petition must also identify the specific 

contentions which the petitioner/

requestor seeks to have litigated at the 

proceedings. 

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 basis 

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 prove, 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 it 

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(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 

78058 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 / Notices 

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 an 

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 an petition for 

leave to intervene should also be sent to 

James M. Petro, Jr., Esquire, Counsel, 

Constellation Energy Group, Inc., 750 

East Pratt Street, 5th floor, Baltimore, 

MD 21202, attorney for the licensee. 

For further details with request to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated July 15, 2004, 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. (Note: Public access to 

ADAMS has been temporarily 

suspended so that security reviews of 

publicly available documents may be 

performed and potentially sensitive 

information removed. Please check the 

NRC Web site for updates of the 

resumption of ADAMS access.)

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of December, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Richard V. Guzman, 

Project Manager, Section 1, Project 

Directorate 1, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 04–28457 Filed 12–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 70–7004] 

Notice of Public Scoping Meeting 

Regarding the Proposed USEC 

American Centrifuge Plant

AGENCY: United States Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Meeting notice.

SUMMARY: USEC Incorporated (USEC) 

submitted a license application to the 

NRC on August 23, 2004, proposing the 

construction, operation and future 

decommissioning of the American 

Centrifuge Plant (ACP) gas centrifuge 

uranium enrichment facility near 

Piketon, OH. The NRC previously 

announced its intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

on October 15, 2004, (69 FR 61268). 

This notice is to notify the public and 

interested parties of a public meeting to 

discuss to the NRC’s environmental 

review of the proposed ACP.

DATES: The public scoping process 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) will continue until 

February 1, 2005. Written comments 

submitted by mail should be 

postmarked by that date to ensure full 

consideration. Comments mailed after 

that date will be considered to the 

extent possible. 

The NRC will conduct a public 

scoping meeting to assist in defining the 

appropriate scope of the EIS, including 

the significant environmental issues to 

be addressed. The meeting date, times 

and location are listed below: 

Meeting Date: January 18, 2005. 

Meeting Location: Zahns Corner 

Middle School, 2379 Schuster Road, 

Piketon, Ohio 45661. 

Scoping Meeting: 7 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. 

Members of the NRC staff will be 

available for informal discussions with 

members of the public from 6 p.m. to 7 

p.m. The formal meeting and associated 

NRC presentation begins at 7 p.m. For 

planning purposes, those who wish to 

present oral comments at the meeting 

are encouraged to pre-register by 

contacting Ron Linton of the NRC by 

telephone at 1–800–368–5642, 

Extension 7777, or by e-mail to 

rcl1@nrc.gov no later than January 6, 

2005. Interested persons may also 

register to speak at the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Members of the public and 

interested parties are invited and 

encouraged to submit comments to the 

Chief, Rules Review and Directives 

Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001. The NRC encourages 

comments to be submitted electronically 

to nrcrep@nrc.gov. Please refer to 

Docket No. 70–7004 when submitting 

comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general or technical information 

associated with the license review of the 

USEC application, please contact: 

Yawar Faraz at (301) 415–8113. For 

general information on the NRC NEPA 

process, or the environmental review 

process related to the USEC application, 

please contact: Matthew Blevins at (301) 

415–7684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1.0 Background 

USEC submitted a license application 

for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment 

facility, known as the American 

Centrifuge Plant (ACP), to the NRC on 

August 23, 2004. The NRC 

environmental review will evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed ACP in 

parallel with the NRC safety review of 

the license application. The 

environmental review will be 

documented in draft and final 

Environmental Impact Statements in 

accordance with NEPA and NRC NEPA 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 

51. 

2.0 USEC Enrichment Facility 

If licensed, the proposed ACP would 

enrich uranium for use in 

manufacturing commercial nuclear fuel 

for use in power reactors. Feed material 

would be natural (not enriched) 

uranium in the form of uranium 

hexafluoride (UF6). USEC proposes to 

use gas centrifuge technology to enrich 

isotope uranium-235 in the uranium 

hexafluoride up to 10 percent. The 

centrifuge would operate at below 

atomospheric pressure. The enriched 

UF6 would be transported to a fuel 

fabrication facility. The depleted UF6

would be stored on site until a 

disposition strategy (either re-use or 

disposal) is carried out by USEC. 

Initially, the licensed capacity of the 

plant would be up to 3.5 million 

separative work units (SWU) [SWU 

relates to a measure of the work used to 

enrich uranium]. USEC has requested 

that the NRC environmental review 

examine the impacts of an enrichment