[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31369-31379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0117]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0117 in the subject
line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking
Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed. You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search
[[Page 31370]]
for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2011-0117. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail:
[email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0117.
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (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 May 5, 2011 to May 18, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28470).
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), Sec. 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.
NRC regulations are available online in the NRC Library on the NRC Web
site at 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.
[[Page 31371]]
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 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-
[[Page 31372]]
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 Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received
at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library at 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].
Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: April 8, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to define a new time limit for
restoring inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable; and make TS Bases changes which reflect the proposed
changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design
basis related to operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-514,
``Revise BWR Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 79048) as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of
RCS leakage is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated.
The monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new
or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the
amount of time the plant is allowed to operate with only the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor operable increases
the margin of safety by increasing the likelihood that an increase
in RCS leakage will be detected before it potentially results in
gross failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
Attorney for licensee: David G. Pettinari, DTE Energy Senior
Corporate Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, DTE Energy, One Energy Plaza,
Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes are
administrative in nature and would delete or modify existing license
conditions that have been completed or are otherwise no longer in
effect. Approval of the proposed changes to the Operating License would
support the Columbia license renewal effort.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment deletes license conditions which are
completed or are otherwise obsolete. As such, the changes are
strictly administrative in nature. The changes do not affect the
manner by which the facility is operated and do not change any
facility
[[Page 31373]]
design feature, structure, system, or component. The proposed
changes do not alter the design assumptions for the systems or
components used to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
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 amendment deletes license conditions which are
completed or are otherwise obsolete. As such, the changes are
strictly administrative in nature. The changes do not affect the
manner by which the facility is operated and do not change any
facility design feature, structure, system, or component. No new or
different type of equipment will be installed.
Therefore, this 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 amendment to the Operating License is
administrative in nature and has no impact on the margin of safety.
The changes do not affect any plant safety parameters or setpoints.
The license conditions have been satisfied as required.
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.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: April 11, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit
for restoring inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable; and make TS Bases changes which reflect the proposed
changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design
basis related to operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved
Standard Technical Specification (STS) Change Traveler TSTF-514,
``Revise BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and
Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010
(75 FR 79048), as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage
is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is concluded
that this change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the drywell atmospheric
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be
detected before it potentially results in gross failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC, the licensee), et al.,
Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), Lake
County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: April 12, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the PNPP Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time
limit for restoring inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage
detection instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate
methods of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors
are inoperable. The changes are consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
change traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, ``Revise [Pressurized Water
Reactor] PWR Operability and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (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.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage
is
[[Page 31374]]
not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The monitoring
of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involved 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 change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the drywell atmospheric
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be
detected before it potentially results in gross failure.
Therefore, the proposed TS changes 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 request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and to establish alternate methods
of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage
is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the
probability of piping evaluated and approved for Leak-Before-Break
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be
detected before it potentially results in gross failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
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 amendment request: February 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
relocate selected figures and values from the Technical Specifications
(TSs) to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) including TS Figure
2.1-1 cited in TS 2.1.1, selected portions of Note 1 on Overtemperature
Delta Temperature and Note 3 on Overpower Delta Temperature in cited TS
Table 2.2-1, TS Figure 3.1-1 cited in TS 3/4.1.1.1, Shutdown Margin
value cited in TS 3/4.1.1.2, Moderator Temperature Coefficient values
cited in TS 3/4.1.1.3, and Departure from Nucleate Boiling values cited
in TS 3.2.5. The description of the COLR in TS 6.9.1.7 is also revised
to reflect these proposed changes. The affected TS figures and
technical limits cited above are only being relocated to the COLR and
are not being changed under this license amendment request.
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.
The proposed changes to relocate cycle-specific parameters from
TS to the COLR are administrative in nature and do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facilities or the
manner in which the units are operated. The proposed changes do not
alter or prevent the
[[Page 31375]]
ability of structures, systems or components to perform their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the acceptance limits assumed in the PTN [Turkey Point
Plant] Updated Final Safety Report (UFSAR).
The subject parameter limits will continue to be
administratively controlled in accordance with Technical
Specification 6.9.1.7. Specifically, this TS requires the COLR to be
submitted to the NRC each reload cycle, including any mid-cycle
revisions or supplements.
Therefore, 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 do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configurations of the facilities or the manner in
which the units are operated. The proposed changes have no adverse
impact on component or system interactions. The proposed changes
will not degrade the ability of systems, structures or components
important to safety to perform their safety function nor change the
response of any system, structure or component important to safety
as described in the PTN UFSAR. The proposed changes are
administrative in nature and do not change the level of programmatic
and procedural details that assure safe operation of the facilities.
Since there are no changes to the design assumptions,
parameters, conditions and configuration of the facilities, or the
manner in which the plants are operated and surveilled, the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no adverse impact on equipment design or operation and
there are no changes being made to Technical Specification cycle-
specific parameter limits themselves that would adversely affect
plant safety. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and
impose alternative procedural and programmatic controls on these
parameter limits in accordance with the Commission's position
established by Generic Letter 88-16 (Reference 1). Any needed
changes to these limits will continue to be submitted to the NRC in
accordance with TS 6.9.1.7 requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above discussion, FPL has determined that the
proposed change does not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: December 29, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would delete
the Seabrook Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Structural
Integrity,'' while relocating the requirements of Surveillance
Requirement 4.4.10 to TS 6.7.6.m.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the physical function of
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed change
neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor
alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed change removes from the Technical Specifications
the requirements associated with structural integrity. Removing
these requirements will have no adverse effect on plant operation,
the availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment,
or plant response to a design basis accident. The change has no
impact on the ability of [American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)] Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components to perform their safety
functions since these components remain under the control of [Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.55a].
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not impact the accident analysis. The
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a significant
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions.
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident. The change does not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not
involve a significant change in the method of plant operation, and
no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used
to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, these proposed changes 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current]
Sources--Operating,'' to incorporate Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-163, Revision 2, ``Minimum vs. Steady State
Voltage and Frequency,'' dated April 22, 1998. The proposed changes
would also revise the Final Safety Analysis Report Update to identify
an exception to NRC Safety Guide 9, ``Selection of Diesel Generator Set
Capacity for Standby Power Supplies,'' dated March 10, 1971.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the
[[Page 31376]]
issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the acceptance criteria to be
applied to an existing Technical Specification (TS) surveillance
test of the facility diesel generators (DGs). The proposed changes
also revise the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Update to
identify an exception to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, Revision 0, for
DG frequency recovery time following loading. The performing of a
surveillance test or identification of RG 1.9 exceptions is not an
accident initiator and does not increase the probability of an
accident occurring. The proposed new surveillance acceptance
criteria will continue to assure that the DGs are capable of
carrying the peak electrical loading assumed in the various existing
safety analyses, which take credit for the operation of the DGs. The
proposed RG 1.9 exception does not adversely impact the ability of
the DGs to perform their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the test acceptance criteria for a
specific performance test conducted on the existing DGs and specify
a RG 1.9 exception. The proposed change does not involve
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment,
so no new equipment failure modes are introduced. The proposed
revision to the DG surveillance test acceptance criteria and the RG
1.9 exception are not a change to the way that the equipment or
facility is operated and no new accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The conduct of performance tests on safety-related plant
equipment is a means of assuring that the equipment is capable of
maintaining the margin of safety established in the safety analyses
for the facility. With the proposed change in the DG TS surveillance
test acceptance criteria, the DG will continue to [be] tested in a
manner that assures it will perform as assumed in the existing
safety analyses. The proposed RG 1.9 exception does not adversely
impact the ability of the DGs to perform their safety function and
does not impact the safety analyses for the facility.
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 8, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revise and
add a new Condition C to Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ``RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation'' and revise
the associated bases. New Condition C is applicable when the primary
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor is the only operable
TS-required instrument monitoring RCS leakage, i.e., TS-required
particulate and sump monitors are inoperable. New Condition C Required
Actions require monitoring RCS leakage by obtaining and analyzing grab
samples of the primary containment atmosphere every 12 hours,
monitoring RCS leakage using administrative means every 12 hours, and
taking action to restore monitoring capability using another monitor
within 7 days. Additionally, minor editorial revisions are proposed to
ensure continuity of the TS format. These changes are the result of new
Condition C and consist of re-lettering existing Conditions C and D as
Conditions D and E, respectively.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register (FR) on April 13, 2010 (75 FR 18907-18908), based on
TS Task Force (TSTF)-514, Revision 1, on possible amendments to revise
the plant-specific TS, to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to operable status,
establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more
required monitors are inoperable, and make TS Bases changes which
reflect the proposed changes and more accurately reflect the contents
of the facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation, including a model safety evaluation (SE) and
model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using
the consolidated line-item improvement process. The NRC staff
subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models,
electronically under ADAMS Accession Number ML102300729, for
referencing in license amendment applications in the FR on December 17,
2010 (75 FR 79048). The FR notice of availability also stated that the
NRC staff disposition of comments received on the Notice of Opportunity
for Comment announced in the FR on April 13, 2010 (75 FR 18907-18908),
on TSTF-514, Revision 1 is available electronically under ADAMS
Accession Number ML102300727. The differences between the revisions did
not cause any changes to the NRC staff SE. As such the comments
received on Revision 1 are equally applicable to Revision 3. The
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in
its application dated April 8, 2011.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of
RCS leakage is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated.
The monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, it is
concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new
or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, it is concluded
that the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
[[Page 31377]]
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the
amount of time the plant is allowed to operate, with only the
primary containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor operable,
increases the margin of safety by limiting continued plant operation
during the timeframe of reduced monitoring capabilities. Therefore,
it is concluded that 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.
Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3,
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 27, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications (TS) to define a new time limit for
restoring inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable. These changes are consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force traveler TSTF-513, Revision 3, ``Revise PWR [pressurized
water reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189) as
part of the consolidated line-item improvement process.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation presently installed in the
plant and reduces the time allowed for the plant to operate when the
only TS-required operable RCS leakage detection instrumentation
monitor is the containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor.
Monitoring for RCS leakage does not contribute to the probability of
an accident, Furthermore, the monitoring of RCS leakage is not a
precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Monitoring RCS
leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the
probability of piping evaluated and approved for Leak-Before-Break
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere
gaseous radiation monitor operable has a positive impact on the
margin of safety by limiting the time of plant operation in this
configuration, which increases the likelihood that an increase in
RCS leakage will be detected before it potentially results in gross
failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 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
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
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 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the 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. Publicly available documents created or received
at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
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].
[[Page 31378]]
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: September 30, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.7, ``Standby Liquid Control (SLC) System,'' to
support a transition to GE14 fuel in the Columbia Generating Station
reactor core. Specifically, the changes raised the required average
boron concentration in the SLC delivered to the reactor core from 660
parts per million (ppm) natural boron to a concentration equivalent to
780 ppm natural boron. The licensee will accomplish this by using
sodium pentaborate solution enriched with the Boron-10 (B-10) isotope.
As a result, the amendment added a new TS Surveillance Requirement
3.1.7.9 to verify sodium pentaborate enrichment is >= 44.0 atom percent
B-10 prior to addition to the SLC tank. The associated TS Bases will be
updated under TS 5.5.10, ``Technical Specification (TS) Bases Control
Program,'' to reflect the increase in the SLC Boron-10 enrichment.
Date of issuance: May 18, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the spring 2011 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 221.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (75
FR 77912).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: June 30, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated December 15, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments change the High
Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) Equipment Room Delta Temperature High
Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value listed in Technical Specification
Table 3.3.2-2, Isolation Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints, Item 4e.
The changes were proposed as a result of a revised licensee analysis
which indicated that the setpoints needed to be lowered to provide an
isolation signal for the HPCI steam supply lines, appropriate for all
postulated conditions, in the event of a 25 gallon-per-minute HPCI
steam line leak.
Date of issuance: May 11, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-202; Unit 2-164.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. The amendments
revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (75 FR
52041).
The supplement dated December 15, 2010, 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 determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-282, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1, Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: February 3, 2011, as
supplemented by letter dated March 15, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Facility
Operating License and the Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--
Operating'', Surveillance Requirement 3.8.1.10 footnote requiring
battery charger modifications.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 15 days.
Amendment No.: 200.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-42: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9827).
The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did
not change this initial no significant hazard consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: June 14, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to allow the use of a dedicated on-line core
power distribution monitoring system, the Westinghouse Best Estimate
Analyzer for Core Operation--Nuclear (BEACON\TM\).
Date of issuance: May 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to December 31, 2011.
Amendment Nos.: 201/188.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (75
FR 57527).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: September 17, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February 8 and April 27, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the minimum
critical power ratio safety limits in Technical Specification 2.1.1.2
from >= 1.10 to >= 1.15 for two recirculation loop operation, and from
>= 1.12 to >= 1.15 for single recirculation loop operation.
Date of issuance: May 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
before startup from the Spring 2011 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 165.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 2, 2010 (75 FR
67403)
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 2011.
[[Page 31379]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-13211 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P