[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16004-16012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6825]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0061]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended
[[Page 16005]]
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or
NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from February 24, 2011, to March 9, 2011. The
last biweekly notice was published on March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12763).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve 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)
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. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
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,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, 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 faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
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 person(s)
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 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/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 requestor/petitioner
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
requestor/petitioner 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 requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/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 requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner 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
[[Page 16006]]
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.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1)
a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel
or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-
Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted 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; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the
[[Page 16007]]
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 from the 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 at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 21, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would relocate
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3) Technical Specification (TS)
3/4.7.14, ``Area Temperature Monitoring,'' and the associated Table
3.7-6, ``Area Temperature Monitoring,'' to the MPS3 Technical
Requirements Manual (TRM).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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:
Criterion 1
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The provisions of TS 3/4.7.14 for area temperature monitoring of
the TS specified or selected areas are neither part of an initial
condition of a design basis accident or transient that either
assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a
fission product barrier, nor are they relied upon as a primary
success path to mitigate such events. The provisions for area
temperature monitoring are not related to events which are
considered frequent or dominant contributors to plant risk. Area
temperature monitoring is not considered a design feature or an
operating restriction which is an initial condition of a design
basis accident or transient analysis, nor does it provide a function
or actuate any accident mitigation feature in order to mitigate the
consequences of a design basis accident or transient.
The environmental qualification and operability of the safety-
related equipment will not be adversely affected by the proposed
changes to the area temperature monitoring program. The relocation
of the TS to the TRM will not increase the probability that the area
temperature design limits will be exceeded or result in a loss of
qualified life of safety-related equipment. In addition, the
consequences of exceeding the temperature limits will not
significantly differ from the existing program since an evaluation
of qualified life and operability will continue to be performed as
part of the EQ [Environmental Qualification] program in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 [Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 50.49].
Relocating TS 3/4.7.14 to the TRM will still provide adequate
controls for area temperature monitoring in those areas designated
in TS Table 3.7-6. Changes to the TRM require 10 CFR 50.59 safety
evaluations and are reviewed and approved by the Facility Safety
Review Committee prior to implementation.
Based on the reasons presented above, operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No new accident will be created as a result of relocating TS 3/
4.7.14 to the TRM. This change is administrative in nature and does
not change the level of programmatic and procedural control
necessary to assure operation of the facility in a safe manner.
Plant operation will not be affected by the proposed change and no
new failure modes will be created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no adverse impact on equipment design or operation and
there are no changes being made to the TS required safety limits or
safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. The
proposed change is administrative in nature and does not change the
level of programmatic and procedural control necessary to ensure
that environmentally qualified equipment will not be exposed to
temperatures beyond that which they were originally qualified. The
relocated requirements will continue to ensure that environmental
qualification temperature limits of safety-related equipment will
not be exceeded without an evaluation of equipment operability;
therefore, the margin of safety is unchanged.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and has the
following comments regarding the licensee's analysis of Criterion 1:
While DNC accurately states that the temperature monitoring of the
TS identified areas is not part of an initial condition of a design
basis accident, some of the TS identified areas have temperatures
limits that are initial conditions assumed in selected accident
analyses. The proposed change relocates TS 3/4.7.14 to the TRM, thereby
changing the administrative controls and regulatory process used to
modify the requirements of this former TS.
The proposed change dose not revise the station design, the
response of the station to transients nor the manner in which the
station is operated; therefore, these changes have no adverse affect on
the safe operation of the station.
Based on the NRC staff's review of the licensee's analysis and the
additional analysis performed by the NRC staff, 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.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, (NMPNS) Docket No. 50-220, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: November 2, 2010, as supplemented
January 27, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.6.2, ``Protective
Instrumentation,'' by modifying the operability requirements for the
average power range monitoring (APRM) instrumentation system. The
proposed amendment would eliminate the requirements that the APRM
``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control rod withdrawal block
functions be operable when the reactor mode switch is in the Refuel
position, and would clarify the operability requirements for the APRM
``Downscale'' control rod withdrawal block function when the reactor
mode switch is in the Startup and Refuel positions.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or
[[Page 16008]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The APRM system is not an initiator of or a precursor to any
accident or transient. The APRM system monitors the neutron flux
level in the power operating range from a few percent to greater
than rated thermal power and provides automatic protective signals
for postulated at-power reactivity insertion events. Thus, the
proposed changes to the TS operability requirements for the APRM
system will not significantly impact the probability of any
previously evaluated accident.
The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the
proposed amendment. The TSs will continue to require operability of
the APRM system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control
rod withdrawal block functions when the reactor mode switch is in
the Startup and Run positions to provide core protection for
postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power
operating conditions. Thus, the consequences of previously evaluated
at-power reactivity insertion events are not affected by the
proposed amendment.
The proposed elimination of the TS requirements that the APRM
system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control rod
withdrawal block functions be operable when the reactor mode switch
is in the Refuel position does not increase the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The NMP1 Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) does not provide analyses of reactivity
insertion events occurring during the refueling operating condition.
The possibility of inadvertent criticality due to a control rod
withdrawal error during refueling is minimized by design features
and procedural controls that are not affected by the proposed
amendment. In addition, since reactor neutron flux levels during
refueling are below the APRM indicating range, the APRM system does
not provide any meaningful core monitoring or protection in the
refueling operating condition. The source range and intermediate
range neutron monitoring systems provide adequate neutron flux
monitoring during refueling and automatically initiate protective
actions (scram or control rod withdrawal block) when required during
refueling.
The change to the TS operability requirements for the APRM
``Downscale'' control rod withdrawal block function is a
clarification to more simply and clearly indicate that this function
is not required when the reactor mode switch is in the Startup and
Refuel positions. This change is consistent with plant design and
does not change the actual TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS operability requirements for the
APRM system do not introduce any new accident precursors and do not
involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods
governing normal plant operation that could initiate a new or
different kind of accident. The proposed amendment does not alter
the intended function of the APRM system and does not adversely
affect the ability of the system to provide core protection for at-
power reactivity insertion events.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and
following postulated accidents. The proposed amendment does not
alter setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident
analyses. The proposed TS changes to eliminate the requirements that
the APRM system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control
rod withdrawal block functions be operable when the reactor mode
switch is in the Refuel position have no impact on the performance
of the fission product barriers since these APRM functions do not
provide any meaningful core monitoring or protection in the
Refueling operating condition. The TSs will continue to require
operability of these APRM functions when the reactor mode switch is
in the Startup and Run positions to provide core protection for
postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power
operating conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
The change to the TS operability requirements for the APRM
``Downscale'' control rod withdrawal block function is a
clarification to more simply and clearly indicate that this function
is not required when the reactor mode switch is in the Startup and
Refuel positions. This change is consistent with plant design and
does not change the actual TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
amendment 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.
Attorney for licensee: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to make administrative changes
which will: (1) in TS Section 5.2.1, allow certain requirements of
onsite and offsite organizations to be documented in the Quality
Assurance Topical Report (QATR); and (2) in TS Section 5.3, remove
reference to specific education and experience requirements for
operator license applicants.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: 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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
This license amendment request proposes to (1) revise Technical
Specification 5.2.1(a) by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical
Report (QATR) as an allowed location for documentation of
requirements for lines of authority, responsibility, and
communication; and (2) revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 by
removal of an exception for operator license applicants' education
and experience requirements, and the reference to a letter which
references a specific industry guidance document. These are
administrative changes.
The proposed changes are administrative and therefore do not
significantly affect any system that is a contributor to initiating
events for previously evaluated accidents. Nor do the changes
significantly affect any system that is used to mitigate any
previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to (1) revise Technical
Specification 5.2.1(a) by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical
Report (QATR) as an allowed location for documentation of
requirements for lines of authority, responsibility, and
communication; and (2) revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 by
removal of an exception for operator license applicants' education
and experience requirements, and the reference to a letter which
references a
[[Page 16009]]
specific industry guidance document. These are administrative
changes.
The proposed administrative changes do not alter the design,
function, or operation of any plant component, nor do they involve
installation of any new or different equipment. Therefore, the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those
previously evaluated has not been created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to (1) revise Technical
Specification 5.2.1(a) by addition of the Quality Assurance Topical
Report (QATR) as an allowed location for documentation of
requirements for lines of authority, responsibility, and
communication; and (2) revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 by
removal of an exception for operator license applicants' education
and experience requirements, and the reference to a letter which
references a specific industry guidance document. These are
administrative changes.
The proposed changes are administrative and therefore do 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Date of application for amendments: January 27, 2011.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would modify Technical Specification (TS) 6.7.6.k, ``Steam Generator,''
and TS 6.8.1.7, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to allow
implementation of alternate repair criteria.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: March
1, 2011 (FR 76 11291).
Expiration date of individual notice: March 31, 2011 (public
comments) and May 2, 2011 (hearing requests).
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20850-2738. Publicly available records will be
accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the
internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: March 5, 2010, as supplemented
November 1, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specifications (TS) Section 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to allow the performance of
maintenance activities for an inoperable Containment Pressure--High
High channel. TS 3.3.6, ``Containment Ventilation Isolation
Instrumentation,'' was revised to correct an error related to table
references.
Date of issuance: March 7, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No. 225.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR
30443). The supplement dated June 8 and August 26, 2004, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification to institute a requirement to perform a Logic
System Functional Test of the Control Rod Block actuation
instrumentation trip functions once every Operating Cycle.
Date of Issuance: February 23, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 246.
[[Page 16010]]
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR
37474).
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: February 22, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated August 12, November 23, and December 21, 2010, and
January 24, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: Entergy Operations, Inc. (the
licensee), was planning to replace the two Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) steam generators (SGs) during the
forthcoming spring 2011 refueling outage. Based on design changes in
the replacement SGs, piping systems will require rerouting in the SG
cavity area. The rerouting of SG blowdown line cannot be effectively
performed without removing the existing dynamic protection associated
with the pressurizer surge line. The amendment approved revision of the
Waterford 3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow the removal of
pipe break dynamic protection associated with the pressurizer surge
line using leak-before-break methodologies. The licensee will include
the revised information in the FSAR in the next periodic update in
accordance with paragraph 50.71(e) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The licensee deferred its planned SG replacement until the
fall 2012 refueling outage.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 232.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and the Final Safety Analyses Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20632). The supplemental letters dated August 12, November 23, and
December 21, 2010, and January 24, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: February 15, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated August 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates selected
Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Braidwood Station, Units
1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled
program. This change is based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (ADAMS
Accession Package No. ML090850642).
Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 165/165.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20635).
The August 19, 2010, supplement contained clarifying information
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: February 15, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated August 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates selected
Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the Byron Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled
program. This change is based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (ADAMS
Accession Package No. ML090850642).
Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 171/171.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20634). The August 19, 2010, supplement contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 16, 2010, as supplanted by
letter dated June 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify the DNPS Units 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) by
relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled
program with the adoption of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-
425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk
Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,''
Revision 3. Additionally, the change would add a new program, the
``Surveillance Frequency Control Program [SFCP],'' to TS Section 5,
``Administrative Controls.''
Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 237/230.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20636).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 16011]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: February 15, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated April 26, June 23, and August 3, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocate selected
Surveillance Requirement frequencies from the LaSalle County Station
Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to a licensee-controlled
program. This change is based on the NRC-approved Industry Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, ``Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3, (ADAMS
Accession Package No. ML090850642).
Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 200/187.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20636).
The April 26, June 23, and August 3, 2010, supplements contained
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: February 26, 2010, as
supplemented November 10, 2010 and January 26, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the scope of
the steam generator tubesheet inspections and subsequent repair using
the F* inspection methodology.
Date of issuance: February 24, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No: 172.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: The amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR
1648). The supplements dated November 10, 2010 and January 27, 2011,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: February 16, 2010, as
supplemented September 21, and December 2, 2010, and February 2, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by deleting TS 3/4.9.7, ``Crane Travel--
Spent Fuel Storage Areas,'' retaining the operational limits associated
with TS 3/4.9.7 in licensee controlled documents, and deleting TS 3/
4.9.12, ``Handling of Spent Fuel Cask.'' Part of the basis for the
change is the proposed installation of a new single-failure-proof spent
fuel cask handling crane meeting the requirements of NUREG-0554,
``Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for Nuclear Power Plants,'' May 1979.
Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 243 (Unit 3) and 239 (Unit 4).
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR
27831).
The supplements dated September 21, 2010, December 2, 2010, and
February 2, 2011, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.9, Diesel
Generator (DG) Load Test, in TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current]
Sources--Operating,'' to correct a non-conservative power factor value.
In addition, this amendment added a new note to SR 3.8.1.9 consistent
with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-
276-A, Revision 2, ``Revise DG full load rejection test.'' This note
allows the DG Load Test to be performed at the specified power factor
with clarifications addressing situations when the power factor cannot
be achieved.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 237.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20639).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of application for amendment: August 12, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Duane
Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) Technical Specification (TS) requirements
for unavailable barriers in accordance with the adoption of Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-427.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 277.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (75
FR 77914).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2011.
[[Page 16012]]
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey.
Date of application for amendment: March 19, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated July 28, 2010, and January 10, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The changes are based on
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change
TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR
33842).
The letters dated July 28, 2010, and January 10, 2011, provided
clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination or expand the
application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: May 28, 2010, as supplemented
December 1, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2.2 ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to include silver-
indium-cadmium material in addition to the boron carbide control rod
material.
Date of issuance: February 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than 90 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 86.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR
44026). TVA's supplement dated December 1, 2010, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed proposed and did not change the
staff's original proposed no significant hazards determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated June 1, 2010, and February 17, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the approved
fire protection program, as described in the response to Question
Q280.5 of the WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report, by removing the
high/low pressure interface designation of the pressurizer power-
operated relief valves and their associated block valves. The amendment
also revised license condition 2.C.(5)(a) to include the change
approved by this amendment request.
Date of issuance: March 9, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 193.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment
revised the operating license and approved fire protection program, as
described in the WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR
37477). The supplemental letter dated February 17, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register. The supplemental
letter dated June 1, 2010, was included in the original notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 9, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-6825 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P