[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34763-34770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14680]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0133]
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 (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission to 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 19, 2011, to June 1, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31369).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0133 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 for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0133. 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-2011-0133.
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
[[Page 34764]]
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.
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
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from 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.
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 the 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-
[[Page 34765]]
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 Commission's PDR. (For more information, see
the ADDRESSES section.)
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate
certain surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program (the
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, SFCP) in accordance with
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed Technical
Specification Task Force] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML090850642). The licensee proposes an administrative change to TSTF-
425, Revision 3, which would allow it to retain the definition of
``Staggered Test Basis'' that also appears in a portion of the plants'
technical specifications (TSs) that are not subject to TSTF-425. The
licensee also proposes to deviate from TSTF-425 by making the changes
recommended to the TSTF in the NRC letter dated April 14, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100990099), regarding the TS Bases.
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-425 in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a
model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated March 31,
2011, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC
determination which is presented below.
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 NSHC, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
[[Page 34766]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, [Arizona
Public Service Company] will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation
using the guidance contained in NRC approved [Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI)] 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI
04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines
and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to
surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the 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
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland
Date of amendment requests: May 11, 2011.
Description of amendment requests: The amendment would modify a
note within Technical Specification 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protective System
(RPS) Instrumentation--Operating,'' to change the value at which the
RPS trip function, Steam Generator Pressure-Low, is bypassed from 785
psig to 785 psia. The revision corrects an administrative error that
occurred during Calvert Cliffs' conversion to the Standard Technical
Specifications.
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 administrative change to correct the unit of
measure listed in note (c) of Technical Specification 3.3.1 to read
psia vice psig does not affect any analyzed accident initiators, nor
does it affect the unit's ability to successfully respond to any
previously evaluated accident. In addition the proposed does not
change the operation or maintenance that it performed on plant
equipment.
Therefore, the proposed change 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 administrative change corrects the unit of measure
listed in note (c) of Technical Specification 3.3.1 to read psia
vice psig. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration to 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 administrative change corrects the unit of measure
listed in note (c) of Technical Specification 3.3.1 to read psia
vice psig. Since this is an administrative change the safety
functions of plant equipment and their response to any analyzed
accident scenario are unaffected by this proposed change and thus
there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety for the operation of each unit.
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: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street,
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (ENO) Docket No. 50-255, Palisades
Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: April 6, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS), to allow extension of
the ten-year plus 15-month frequency of the Palisades Nuclear Plant
Type A, or Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) that is required by TS
5.5.14, to 15 years on a permanent basis.
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 involves changes to the PLP [Palisades
Nuclear Plant] containment leakage rate testing program. The
proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the plant
or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled. The primary containment function is to provide an
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such,
the containment itself and the testing requirements to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 94-01, Revision 2-A, for development of
the PLP performance-based testing program. Implementation of these
guidelines continues to provide adequate assurance that during
design basis accidents, the primary containment and its components
would limit leakage rates to less than the values assumed in the
plant safety analyses. The potential consequences of extending the
ILRT interval to 15 years have been evaluated by analyzing the
resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk in terms of person-
rem per year within 50 miles resulting from design basis accidents
was estimated to be acceptably small and determined to be within the
guidelines published in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally,
the proposed change maintains defense-in-depth by preserving a
reasonable balance among prevention of core damage, prevention of
containment failure, and consequence mitigation. ENO has determined
that the increase in conditional containment failure probability due
to the proposed change would be very small.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the
[[Page 34767]]
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 adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 2-A, for the development of the PLP performance-
based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval
for the performance of the containment ILRT. The containment and the
testing requirements, to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment, exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors
or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical
change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled.
Therefore, 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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 2-A, for the development of the PLP performance-
based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval
for the performance of the containment ILRT. This amendment does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the containment leakage rate
testing program, as defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of
primary containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is
considered in the plant's safety analysis is maintained. The overall
containment leakage rate limit specified by the TS is maintained,
and the Type A, Type B, and Type C containment leakage tests would
be performed at the frequencies established in accordance with the
NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A.
Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant
programs serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment would not degrade in a manner that is not detectable by
an ILRT. A risk assessment using the current PLP PSA [probabilistic
safety assessment] model concluded that extending the ILRT test
interval from 10 years to 15 years results in a very small change to
the PLP risk profile.
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: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2011.
Description of amendments request: The proposed licensing amendment
request would revise the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) Improved Technical
Specifications (ITS) 3.7.19, ``Diesel Driven EFW [Emergency Feedwater]
(DD-EFW) Pump Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, Starting Air,'' Condition A and ITS
Surveillance Requirement 3.7.19.1, in order to increase the ITS minimum
required stored diesel fuel for the DD-EFW pump in the fuel oil supply
tank.
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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to revises the
Diesel Driven Emergency Feedwater (DD-EFW) pump (EFP-3) fuel oil
supply tank (DFT-4) action condition and surveillance values to
ensure that the EFW pump will remain capable of performing the
design function of operating continuously for up to seven days. The
proposed amendment provides the same functional requirement as
previously approved.
The consequences of an accident refer to the impact on both
plant personnel and the public from any radiological release
associated with the accident. The Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System
removes decay heat to prevent a radiological release. A more
conservative action condition and surveillance value restores design
margin and provides assurance that the equipment supplied by the EFW
System will operate correctly and within the assumed timeframe to
perform their mitigating functions. The administrative controls that
have been established are an acceptable short term correction along
with this LAR. The EFW System is used for accident mitigation and is
not an initiator of design basis accidents. Therefore, the
probability of previously analyzed events is not affected by this
change. No capability or design functions of EFP-3 or the EFW System
will change. The initial conditions for accidents that require EFW
and accident mitigation capability of the EFW System will remain
unchanged.
EFP-3 and DFT-4 are mitigating components and are not initiators
for any analyzed accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) Condition
will ensure equipment is restored to an operable status in
accordance with previously approved timeframes and functional
levels. The proposed Surveillance Requirement (SR) will ensure the
same functional requirement as the previously approved SR. The more
conservative DFT-4 tank levels will provide additional assurance
that the EFP-3 can provide the seven day operation that is required.
No new plant configurations or conditions are created by the
proposed ITS Condition or SR. Therefore, the proposed amendment
cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed ITS Condition and SR ensure adequate fuel oil
inventory is available to operate EFP-3 for seven days. The proposed
changes replace the calculated fuel oil inventory values with a more
conservative value. The proposed SR ensures the same functional
requirement for a seven day supply of fuel oil for EFP-3 as was
previously approved. Similarly, the proposed ITS Condition ensures
the same functional level as currently approved by requiring that a
reduced fuel oil inventory of less than seven days, but more than
six days, is restored to the seven day level within 48 hours. Based
on the above, the proposed LAR meets the same intent as the
currently approved specifications.
The proposed CR-3 ITS and SR, revising the values for DFT-4 fuel
storage, will ensure that the EFW System will be able to perform all
design functions assumed in the accident analyses. Administrative
limits are in place to ensure these parameters remain within
analyzed limits.
As such, 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 T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
[[Page 34768]]
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket Nos. 50-315 and
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: May 3, 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 NRC-approved Revision 3
to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-513, ``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 (CLIIP).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided an
analysis of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), which is
reproduced 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.
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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia and Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) section 3.4.15 RCS [Reactor
Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation, in accordance with
the Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-513-A, Revision 3,
titled ``Revise PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Operability
Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage [detection] Instrumentation.''
Specifically, the proposed amendment would revise the TS to define a
new time limit for restoring inoperable RCS leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable. The notice of availability for this TS improvement
initiative was published 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 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
[[Page 34769]]
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.
Based upon the above analysis, SNC concludes that the requested
change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, as set
forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), ``Issuance of Amendment.''
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: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308-2216.
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 01 F21, 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].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: June 4, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment removes an expired
time-related item and several typographical errors for the Clinton
Power Station Technical Specifications.
Date of issuance: May 26, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 193.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75
FR 54395).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: January 6, 2010, as
supplemented on August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010, December 6, 2010,
and February 7, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment enables PBAPS, Units
2 and 3, to possess byproduct and special nuclear material from
Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the
revised license paragraph would permit storage of low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW) from LGS in the PBAPS LLRW Storage Facility. The PBAPS
LLRW Storage Facility currently provides storage for LLRW generated at
PBAPS.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-280, Unit 3-282.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75
FR 74094). The supplements dated August 20, 2010, October 14, 2010,
December 6, 2010, and February 7, 2011, clarified the application, did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did
not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: This license amendment modifies the
required testing frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 from
``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative
operation in MODE 1,'' by incorporating U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF-460, Revision 0.
Date of issuance: May 19, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 156.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
technical specifications and license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9825).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2010.
[[Page 34770]]
Brief description of amendment: This license amendment modifies the
requirements for testing control rod scram times following fuel
movement within the reactor pressure vessel by incorporating Nuclear
Regulatory Commission approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-222-A, Revision 1.
Date of issuance: May 19, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 157.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9824).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2010, as supplemented by letters
dated March 1 and May 2, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 6.8.3.I, ``Containment Post-Tensioning System
Surveillance Program,'' and the related TS Surveillance Requirement
4.6.1.6, ``Containment Prestressing System,'' for consistency with the
requirements of the containment inservice inspection program mandated
by paragraph 50.55a(g)(4) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), for components classified as Code Class CC.
Specifically, the amendments deleted the reference to the specific
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME Code) edition in TS 6.8.3.l and replaced it with the
requirement to use the applicable ASME Code, Section XI edition and
addenda for successive 10-year inservice inspection intervals in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a, ``Codes and standards.'' The changes
have no impact on the implementation of the Containment Post-Tensioning
System Surveillance Program or the design basis of STP, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: May 27, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-196; Unit 2-184.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (75
FR 57529). The supplemental letter dated March 1, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, but did change the
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register on September 21,
2010 (75 FR 57529). The revised proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination was published in the Federal Register on
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16012).
The supplemental letter dated May 2, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as noticed on March 22, 2011, and did not change the
staff's revised proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2011
(76 FR 16012).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket No. 50-281, Surry
Power Station, Unit 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: December 16, 2010.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the
inspection scope and repair requirements of Technical Specification
(TS) Section 6.4.Q, ``Steam Generator Program,'' and to the reporting
requirements of TS Section 6.6.A.3, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection
Report.'' The proposed changes would be applicable to Surry Unit 2
during Refueling Outage 23 and the subsequent operating cycle.
Date of issuance: May 20, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 273.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-37: Amendment changes
the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21923).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2), Surry County,
Virginia
Date of application for amendments: May 6, 2010.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the
licenses and the Technical Specifications (TSs) to provide new limits
that are valid to 48 effective full-power years for Surry 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-274 and Unit 2-274.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75
FR 54396).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of June 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-14680 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P