5226 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Notices 

fabricated with Optimized ZIRLOTM. 

Based on the staff’s evaluation, as set 

forth above, the staff considers that 

granting the proposed exemption will 

not defeat the underlying purpose of 10 

CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, or Appendix 

K to 10 CFR part 50. Accordingly, 

special circumstances, are present 

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii).

3.3.5. Other Standards in 10 CFR 50.12 

The staff examined the rest of the 

licensee’s rationale to support the 

exemption request, and concluded that 

the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM would 

satisfy 10 CFR 50.12(a) as follows: 

(1) The requested exemption is 

authorized by law: 

No law precludes the activities 

covered by this exemption request. The 

Commission, based on technical reasons 

set forth in rulemaking records, 

specified the specific cladding materials 

identified in 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 

50.46, and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K. 

Cladding materials are not specified by 

statute. 

(2) The requested exemption does not 

present an undue risk to the public 

health and safety as stated by the 

licensee:

The LTA safety evaluation will ensure that 

these acceptance criteria [in the 

Commission’s regulations] are met following 

the insertion of LTAs containing Optimized 

ZIRLOTM material. Fuel assemblies using 

Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding will be 

evaluated using NRC-approved analytical 

methods and plant specific models to address 

the changes in the cladding material 

properties. The safety analysis for VSNS is 

supported by the applicable technical 

specification. The VSNS reload cores 

containing Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding 

will continue to be operated in accordance 

with the operating limits specified in the 

technical specifications. LTAs utilizing 

Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding will be placed 

in non-limiting core locations. Thus, the 

granting of this exemption request will not 

pose an undue risk to public health and 

safety.

The NRC staff has evaluated these 

considerations as set forth in Section 3.1 

of this exemption. For the reasons set 

forth in that section, the staff concludes 

that Optimized ZIRLOTM may be used 

as a cladding material for no more than 

four LTAs to be placed in nonlimiting 

core locations during VSNS’s next 

refueling outage, and that an exemption 

from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 

10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix K does not pose an undue 

risk to the public health and safety. 

4.0 Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

the public health and safety, and is 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. Also, special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, 

the Commission hereby grants SCE&G 

exemptions from the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix K, to allow four LTAs 

containing fuel rods with Optimized 

ZIRLOTM and several different 

developmental clad alloys. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the 

Commission has determined that the 

granting of this exemption will not have 

a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment (70 FR 1742). 

This exemption is effective upon 

issuance.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 14th 

day of January 2005.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James E. Lyons, 

Deputy Director, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 05–1772 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–390] 

Utility Name; 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 (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

90 issued to the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (the licensee) for operation of 

the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), 

Unit 1, located in Rhea County, 

Tennessee. 

The proposed change allows entry 

into a mode or other specified condition 

in the applicability of a Technical 

Specification (TS), while in a condition 

statement and the associated required 

actions of the TS, provided the licensee 

performs a risk assessment and manages 

risk consistent with the program in 

place for complying with the 

requirements of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, 

section 50.65(a)(4). Limiting Condition 

for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 exceptions in 

individual TSs would be eliminated, 

several notes or specific exceptions are 

revised to reflect the related changes to 

LCO 3.0.4, and Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.0.4 is revised to 

reflect the LCO 3.0.4 allowance. The No 

Significant Hazards Consideration 

Determination concerning this change 

was published in the Federal Register

on January 18, 2005 (70 FR 2901). 

A separate change, not described in 

the above Federal Register notice, was 

also included in the licensee’s 

application. In accordance with TS Task 

Force (TSTF)—285, Charging Pump 

Swap Low-Temperature OverPressurization Allowance, LCO 3.4.12, 

Cold Overpressure Mitigation System 

(COMS), is being revised to modify and 

relocate two notes in the WBN TSs. The 

changes are all administrative, except a 

change which would allow two charging 

pumps to be made capable of injecting 

into the Reactor Coolant System to 

support pump swap operations for a 

period not to exceed 1 hour instead of 

the currently allowed 15 minutes. 

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. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination 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 proposed change to the WBN TS is 

consistent with improvements made to the 

Standard Technical Specifications for 

Westinghouse Plants and continues to 

provide controls for safe operation within the 

required limits. The probability of occurrence 

or the consequences of an accident are not 

significantly increased as a result of the 

increased time from 15 minutes to one hour 

to allow pump swap operations. The one 

hour time period is reasonable considering 

the small likelihood of an event during this 

brief period and the other administrative 

controls available (e.g., operator action to 

stop any pump that inadvertently starts) and 

considering the required vent paths in 

accordance with the LCO. The proposed 

change does not affect degradation of 

accident mitigation systems. The proposed 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Notices 5227

revision continues to maintain the required 

safety functions. 

Accordingly, the probability of an accident 

or the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated is not significantly 

increased. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change improves the WBN 

TS consistent with improvements made to 

the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 

for Westinghouse Plants and continues to 

provide controls for safe operation within the 

required limits. The subject change improves 

currently allowed pump swap provisions by 

realistically addressing time to safely and 

deliberately secure the operating pump and 

place the alternate pump in service, and 

provides additional assurance that seal 

injection requirements are not compromised. 

No new or different accident potential is 

created by the subject change. The change 

does not adversely impact plant equipment, 

test methods, or operating practices. 

Therefore, 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 WBN TS is 

consistent with improvements made to the 

Standard Technical Specifications for 

Westinghouse Plants and provides improved 

pump swap provisions which should 

enhance safe operation within required 

limits. The change does not adversely impact 

plant equipment, test methods, or operating 

practices. The proposed change does not 

affect degradation of accident mitigation 

systems and continues to maintain the 

required safety functions of COMS to assure 

that the reactor vessel is adequately protected 

against exceeding pressure and temperature 

limits. 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 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, 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 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 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 amendment 

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. 

5228 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 20 / Tuesday, February 1, 2005 / Notices 

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. 

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 

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 the General Counsel, Tennessee 

Valley Authority, ET 11A, 400 West 

Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 

37902, attorney for the licensee. 

For further details with respect to this 

action, see the application for 

amendment dated September 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.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 25th 

day of January 2005.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Douglas V. Pickett, 

Senior Project Manager, Section II, Project 

Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 05–1771 Filed 1–31–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Workshop on Regulatory Structure for 

New Plant Licensing, Part 1: 

Technology-Neutral Framework 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has issued a working 

draft of a NUREG report ‘‘Regulatory 

Structure for New Plant Licensing, Part 

1: Technology-Neutral Framework’’

(draft NUREG–3–2005) for public 

review and comment. The purpose of 

this working draft NUREG is to provide 

an approach, scope, and acceptance 

criteria that could be used by the NRC 

staff to develop a technology-neutral set 

of requirements for future plant 

licensing. At the present time, the 

material contained in the working draft 

NUREG is preliminary and does not 

represent a final staff position, but 

rather is an interim product issued for 

the purpose of engaging stakeholders 

early in the development of the 

document and to support a workshop to 

be held in March 2005. As such, certain 

sections of this document are 

incomplete and are planned to be 

completed following receipt of initial 

stakeholder feedback. It is the staff’s 

intent to complete this document in late 

2005 and issue it as a final draft for 

stakeholder review and comment. 

The work represented in this 

document is, however, considered 

sufficiently developed to illustrate one 

possible way to establish a technologyneutral approach to future plant 

licensing and to identify the key 

technical and policy issues which must 

be addressed; accordingly, it can serve 

as a useful vehicle for engaging 

stakeholders and facilitating discussion. 

The NRC staff has issued a working 

draft NUREG on ‘‘Regulatory Structure 

for New Plant Licensing, Part 1: 

Technology-Neutral Framework.’’ The 

NRC staff requests comments within 90 

days from the issuing date of this 

Federal Register Notice. Comments may 

be accompanied by relevant information 

or supporting data. Please mention draft 

NUREG–3–2005 in the subject line of 

your comments. You may submit 

comments by any one of the following 

methods. 

Mail comments to Rules and 

Directives Branch, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555–

0001. 

E-mail comments to 

NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit 

comments via the NRC’s rulemaking 

Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.

Address questions about our rulemaking 

Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415–

5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov.

Hand deliver comments to: Rules and 

Directives Branch, Office of 

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission at (301) 415–5144. 

Requests for information about the 

draft NUREG may be directed to Mr. A. 

Singh at (301) 415–0250 or e-mail 

AXS3@nrc.gov.

Comments will be most helpful if 

received by April 22, 2005. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

the NRC is able to ensure consideration 

only for comments received on or before 

this date. 

The NRC intends to conduct a 

workshop on March 14–16, 2005, to 

help facilitate the review and comment 

process. This workshop will be held in 

the auditorium at NRC headquarters, 

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Maryland. 

Please notify Mr. A. Singh at (301) 

415–0250 or e-mail AXS3@nrc.gov, if 

you plan to attend the workshop so that 

you can be pre-registered. Preregistration will help facilitate your 

entry into the NRC facility for the 

workshop. In addition, please arrive at 

NRC headquarters 45 minutes prior to 

the start of the workshop so that you