64998 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Notices

Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available

records will be accessible electronically

from the Agencywide Documents

Access and Management Systems

(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading

Room on the Internet at the NRC web

site, http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html. Persons who do not have

access to ADAMS or who encounter

problems in accessing the documents

located in ADAMS, should contact the

NRC Public Document Room Reference

staff by telephone at 1–800–397–4209,

301–415–4737 or by email to

pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Richard B. Ennis,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–30972 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–244, License No. DPR–18]

Order Approving Application

Regarding Proposed Corporate

Acquisition

In the Matter of Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power

Plant).

I

Rochester Gas and Electric

Corporation (RG&E or the licensee) is

licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC or Commission) to

possess, maintain, and operate the R. E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna)

under Facility Operating License No.

DPR–18, issued by the Commission on

December 10, 1984. The facility is

located in Wayne County, New York.

II

By application dated June 22, 2001,

RG&E requested that the Commission

consent to the indirect transfer of the

facility operating license for Ginna. The

indirect transfer would result from the

planned acquisition of RG&E’s parent

company, RGS Energy Group, Inc.

(RGS), by Energy East Corporation

(Energy East).

According to the application, on

February 16, 2001, RGS and Energy East

entered into an agreement pursuant to

which RGS would be merged with and

into a wholly owned subsidiary of

Energy East. After the planned merger

transaction, RG&E will continue to exist

as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary

of Energy East. RG&E would continue to

own Ginna following approval of the

proposed indirect transfer of the license,

and would continue to be exclusively

responsible for the operation,

maintenance, and eventual

decommissioning of the facility. No

physical changes to the facility or

operational changes were proposed in

the application.

Approval of the indirect transfer of

the operating license was requested by

RG&E pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. Notice

of the request for approval and an

opportunity for a hearing was published

in the Federal Register on August 14,

2001 (66 FR 42687). No hearing requests

or written comments were received.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,

or any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. After

reviewing the information in the

application from RG&E and other

information before the Commission, the

NRC staff has determined that the

acquisition by Energy East of RGS

resulting in the establishment of Energy

East as the new ultimate indirect parent

of RG&E will not affect the

qualifications of RG&E as the holder of

the license, and that the indirect transfer

of the license, to the extent effected by

the foregoing transaction, is otherwise

consistent with applicable provisions of

law, regulations, and orders issued by

the Commission, subject to the

conditions set forth below. The

foregoing findings are supported by a

safety evaluation dated December 10,

2001.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to sections

161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and

2234, and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby

ordered that the application regarding

the indirect transfer of the license

referenced above is approved, subject to

the following conditions:

(1) RG&E shall provide the Director of

the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

a copy of any application, at the time it

is filed, to transfer (excluding grants of

security interests or liens) from RG&E to

any direct or indirect parent, or to any

other affiliated company, facilities for

the production, transmission, or

distribution of electric energy having a

depreciated book value exceeding ten

percent (10%) of RG&E’s consolidated

net utility plant, as recorded on RG&E’s

books of account.

(2) Should the planned acquisition by

Energy East of RGS not be completed by

December 31, 2002, this Order shall

become null and void, provided,

however, upon written application and

for good cause shown, such date may in

writing be extended. This Order is

effective upon issuance.

IV

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated June

22, 2001, and the safety evaluation

dated December 10, 2001, which are

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and accessible from the

Agencywide Documents Access and

Management Systems (ADAMS) Public

Electronic Reading Room on the internet

at the NRC Web site, http://

www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of December, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,

Director, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–30973 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–390]

Tennessee Valley Authority; 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 Tennessee Valley Authority

(TVA or the licensee) for operation of

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1,

located in Rhea County, Tennessee.

The proposed amendment would

revise the Final Safety Analysis Report

to reflect a change in the spent fuel pool

(SFP) cooling analysis methodology.

TVA proposes to increase the existing

WBN SFP heat load limit from its

current value of 32.6 MBTU/HR to 47.4

MBTU/HR. The proposed change would

give TVA the capability to off-load the

core during outages as early as 100

hours after shutdown. In addition, the

change would compensate for the

projected increase in SFP decay heat

from tritium production activities.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Notices 64999

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:

A. The proposed methodology change does

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup

system (SFPCCS) will see higher heat loading

for the spent fuel as a result a 100[-]hour core

offload as well as tritium producing burnable

rod (TPBAR) irradiation. The analysis

methodology change takes advantage of

operating data as input into the SFP cooling

analysis assumptions. Specifically, by taking

credit for actual (lower) fouling of the

SFPCCS heat exchangers and using actual

component cooling system (CCS)

temperatures, higher allowable heat loads

can be safely placed within the SFP without

exceeding existing design limitations. The

increased quantity of heat being rejected to

the CCS system is well within the system’s

design capability. The actual SFP cooling

system is not being modified from what was

previously evaluated and will continue to

provide cooling as previously described.

Existing maximum SFP temperatures will not

be exceeded. Should loss of all cooling (loss

of two trains) occur, ample time and sources

for providing makeup water, are available,

therefore there is no increased probability for

SFP boil-off to uncover the stored spent fuel.

Since the stored fuel will remain covered,

there is no increase in radiological effects of

such an event.

Therefore, the proposed methodology

change does not increase the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

B. The proposed methodology change does

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

The SFP cooling system will see higher

heat loading for the spent fuel as a result a

100 hour core offload as well as TPBAR

irradiation, the methodology change takes

advantage of operating data as input into the

SFP cooling analysis assumptions. The actual

SFP cooling system is not being modified

from what was previously evaluated and will

continue to provide cooling as previously

described. The current UFSAR [Updated

Final Safety Analysis Report] recognizes that

a complete loss of SFP cooling (loss of two

trains) would ultimately result in a SFP

boiling condition. However, the revised

analysis has shown that even with higher

allowable decay heat loads placed in the SFP,

adequate sources for makeup exists to allow

reasonable time (over three days) to mitigate

such an event, without reducing the SFP

water level to unacceptable levels (10 feet

above fuel storage racks).

Loss of one train of cooling remains within

the piping design analysis basis and the pool

liner structural analysis since the peak

temperatures projected are the same.

An error in the determination of the heat

exchanger fouling factor would be detected

by comparing trends from past

determinations and through measured pool

temperature.

Therefore, the proposed methodology

change does not create a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

C. The proposed methodology change does

not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

This methodology change further refines

assumptions made in the SFP cooling

analysis based upon operating data. The SFP

cooling system is not being modified and will

continue to provide cooling as previously

described. The current UFSAR recognizes

that a complete loss of SFP cooling (loss of

two trains) would ultimately result in a SFP

boiling condition. However, the revised

analysis has shown that even with higher

allowable decay heat loads placed in the SFP,

adequate sources for makeup exist to allow

adequate time (over three days) to mitigate

such an event, without reducing the SFP

water level to unacceptable levels (10 feet

above fuel storage racks). While the revised

analysis has shown a decrease in the time to

react to a complete loss of SFP cooling, the

resulting time available to mitigate such an

event is acceptable. Additionally, the

analyses for loss of cooling events all

considered steady state heat loads from the

fuel. Since a loss of two trains must first be

postulated, over three days exists to restore

cooling, heat load decreases over the three

days, and multiple sources of makeup (one

qualified) exist, adequate assurance is

provided that the proposed change will not

involve a significant reduction in any margin

of safety related to SFPCCS operation or

storage of spent fuel.

The higher heat loads rejected to the CCS

system are well within its design basis

allowable heat loads experienced in other

operating modes, therefore the CCS system

can safety remove the increased decay heat

from the SFP.

Therefore, this proposed methodology

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 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 the 30-day notice period.

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

30-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 and provide for opportunity

for a hearing 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, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By January 16, 2002, 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

65000 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2001 / Notices

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov). If a request for a hearing

or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of 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 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. Petitioner

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 to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies 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, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

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.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to the General

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 10H,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, attorney

for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 20, 2001, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day

of December 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Mark Padovan,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–30969 Filed 12–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328]

Tennessee Valley Authority; 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 or the Commission)

is considering issuance of an

amendment to Facility Operating

License Nos. DRP–77 and DRP–79

issued to the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA or the licensee) for

operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant

(SQN), Units 1 and 2, located in SoddyDaisy, Tennessee.

The proposed amendments would

change Technical Specifications (TSs) to

allow SQN to provide incore irradiation

services for the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE). This change would allow

TVA to insert up to 2256 tritiumproducing burnable absorber rods

(TPBARs) into the reactor cores to

support DOE in maintaining its tritium

inventory for national defense purposes.

Each SQN core contains 193 fuel

assemblies and each fuel assembly

contains 264 fuel rods. In this

amendment request, TVA proposes to

insert up to 24 TPBARs in selected fuel

assemblies (adjacent to but not in place

of the 264 fuel rods). The TPBARS

absorb neutrons and are similar to (and

would replace) normal burnable neutron

absorber rods that serve to shape

neutron flux in the core. The TPBARs