[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64388-64399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26893]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0241]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses; Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
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 September 22, 2011 to October 5, 2011. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 4, 2011(76 FR 61391).
Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0241 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-
2011-0241. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-
492-3668; e-mail [email protected].
Mail comments to: 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 accessible electronically through ADAMS 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-2011-0241.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
[[Page 64389]]
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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
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 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
[[Page 64390]]
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, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received
at the NRC are accessible electronically through ADAMS 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].
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 amendments request: August 31, 2011.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ``RCS [reactor coolant system]
Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nuclear Boiling (DNB)
Limits,'' the bases for TS 3.4.1 and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits
Report (COLR),'' by replacing the DNB numeric limits with references to
the COLR. The proposed changes are consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)
change traveler TSTF-487-A, Revision 1, ``Relocate DNB Parameters to
the COLR.''
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. [Would the amendment involve] a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed amendment replaces the limit values of the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) departure from nucleate boiling (DNB)
parameters i.e., pressurizer pressure, RCS cold leg temperature and
RCS flow rate in the Technical Specifications (TS) with references
to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), in accordance with the
guidance of Generic Letter 88-16, to allow these parameter limit
values to be recalculated without a license amendment. The proposed
amendment does not involve operation of any required structures,
systems, or components in a manner or configuration different from
those previously recognized or evaluated. The cycle-specific values
in the COLR must be calculated using the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory
Commission] approved methodologies listed in TS 5.6.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR).'' Replacing the RCS DNB parameter
limits in the TS with references to the COLR will maintain existing
operating fuel cycle analysis requirements. Because these parameter
limits are determined using NRC-approved methodologies, the
acceptance criteria established for the safety analyses of various
transients and accidents will continue to be met.
Therefore, neither the probability nor consequences of any
accident previously evaluated will be increased by the proposed
change.
The proposed administrative change to remove an outdated note
from TS 3.4.1.c and SR [surveillance requirement] 3.4.1.3 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 amendment does not change the
operation or maintenance that is performed on plant equipment.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. [Would the amendment create] the possibility of a new or
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed amendment to replace the RCS DNB parameter limits
in the TS with references to the COLR does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant, nor a change or addition of a system
function. The proposed amendment does not involve
[[Page 64391]]
operation of any required system, structure, or component in a
manner or configuration different from those previously recognized
or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the
proposed change.
The proposed administrative change to remove an outdated note
from TS 3.4.1.c and SR 3.4.1.3 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, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility or a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. [Would the amendment involve] a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
No.
The proposed amendment to replace the RCS DNB parameter limits
in the TS with references to the COLR will continue to maintain the
margin of safety. The DNB parameter limits specified in the COLR
will be determined based on the safety analysis of transients and
accidents, performed using NRC-approved methodologies that show
that, with appropriate measurement uncertainties of the parameters
accounted for, the acceptance criteria for each of the analyzed
transients are met. This provides the same margin of safety as the
limit values currently specified in the TS. Any future revisions to
the safety analyses that require prior NRC approval are identified
per the 10 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 50.59 review process.
The proposed administrative change removes an outdated note from
TS 3.4.1.c and SR 3.4.1.3. Since this is an administrative change,
the safety function of plant equipment and their response to any
analyzed accident are unaffected by this proposed change and, thus,
there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would 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
amendments request involves 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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: August 15, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--
Operating,'' through a reduction to the maximum steady state voltage
criteria for safety-related 4.16 kV buses from 4580 V to 4300 V in
certain Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.8.1 Surveillance
Requirements.
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 does not significantly increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated in the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The revised steady state voltage
ensures that the diesel generators (DGs) and equipment powered by
the DGs will continue to function as required to mitigate accidents
as described in the USAR. The DGs and the equipment they power are
part of the systems required to mitigate an accident. Mitigation
equipment is not a factor in accident initiation.
Therefore, the probability of a previously evaluated accident
will not significantly increase due to operating in the proposed
manner.
The reduction of the DG maximum steady state voltage limit
ensures that the DGs and the safety-related components downstream of
the DG are operated within their design limitations; therefore, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR will
not be increased by operating in the proposed manner. The change to
the DG maximum steady state voltage limit ensures the DGs and
equipment powered by the DGs will perform as analyzed and mitigate
the consequences of any accident described in the USAR.
Therefore, the change in the maximum steady state voltage limit
is within the bounds of previous analysis in the USAR and does not
involve an increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of any previously
evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This TS amendment request does not involve any changes to the
operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-related, or
otherwise important to safety system. All systems that are important
to safety will continue to be operated and maintained within their
design bases. The proposed changes to LCO 3.8.1 will resolve a non-
conservatism, which will serve to ensure that all associated systems
and components are operated reliably within their design
capabilities.
Since all systems will continue to be operated within their
design capabilities, no new failure modes are introduced, nor is the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident created through
operation in the proposed manner.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is limited to the diesel generator maximum
steady state voltage limit acceptance criterion in TS 3.8.1
Surveillance Requirements. No other surveillance criterion is
affected. The surveillance frequencies and test requirements are
unchanged. The proposed change provides increased assurance that the
diesel generators and equipment powered by the diesel generators
will perform as designed.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver
County, Pennsylvania
Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1
(DBNPS), Ottawa County, Ohio
Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), Lake
County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: September 20, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the licenses of BVPS, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, DBNPS and PNPP to
reflect the name change of an owner licensee from ``FirstEnergy Nuclear
Generation Corp.'' to ``FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC.'' The
proposed amendment is administrative in nature. The proposed amendment
will also correct errors regarding the name of FirstEnergy Nuclear
Generation Corp in the DBNPS and PNNP Facility Operating Licenses.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Section 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
[[Page 64392]]
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the name of an owner licensee.
The proposed amendment is considered administrative in nature. The
functions of the owner licensee will not change. There is no impact
upon the other facility licensees. FENOC will remain the operator of
the facilities. The proposed amendment does not alter the design,
function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the accident
and transient analyses contained in the facility updated final
safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
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 accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is considered administrative in nature.
The functions of the owner licensee will not change. The proposed
amendment does not alter the design, function, or operation of any
plant equipment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new of different kind of accident from any previously
identified.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the name of an owner licensee.
The proposed amendment is considered administrative in nature. The
functions of the owner licensee will not change. There is no impact
upon the other facility licensees. FENOC will remain the operator of
the facilities. The proposed amendment does not alter the design,
function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the accident
and transient analyses contained in the facility updated final
safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 25, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would
relocate the specifications in Section 5.2--Containment, Section 5.4--
Reactor Coolant System, and Section 5.6--Component Cyclic or Transient
Limit, to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.3 regarding spent fuel storage pool capacity
would be revised to a total pool capacity limit only. This application
also satisfies FPL commitments in Turkey Point Licensee Event Report
05000250/2010-001-01 dated November 22, 2010, and FPL letter L-2011-032
dated February 22, 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:
FPL has evaluated these TS changes to determine if a significant
hazard is present. The No Significant Hazards Consideration
evaluation required by 10 CFR 50.92 is provided below.
(1) Would operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The deletion of TSs 5.2, 5.4 and 5.6 with design values and
cyclic or transient limits relocated to the FSAR, and the relocation
of storage rack capacities in TS 5.5.3 to the FSAR are
administrative in nature. The TS changes do not represent any
physical change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to
procedures established for plant operation.
Therefore, initial conditions associated with and systems
credited for mitigating the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated remain unchanged.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Would operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The deletion of TSs 5.2, 5.4 and 5.6 with design values and
cyclic or transient limits relocated to the FSAR, and the relocation
of storage rack capacities in TS 5.5.3 to the FSAR are
administrative in nature. The TS changes do not represent any
physical change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to
procedures established for plant operation. Because the proposed
changes are administrative and do not alter or create a new mode of
plant operation or configuration, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident is not created.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Would operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The deletion of TSs 5.2, 5.4 and 5.6 with design values and
cyclic or transient limits relocated to the FSAR, and the relocation
of storage rack capacities in TS 5.5.3 to the FSAR are
administrative in nature. The TS changes do not represent any
physical change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to
procedures established for plant operation. Because the proposed
changes are administrative and do not alter or create a new mode of
plant operation or configuration, margins of safety are unchanged.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment will 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: 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 (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 5, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SR)
4.8.2.1 pertaining to periodic verification of battery bank capacity
and intercell and connection resistance.
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:
(a) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
[[Page 64393]]
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to the surveillance requirements only.
The ability of the TS surveillance to ensure that the batteries have
the capacity to perform their specified safety functions with regard
to accident mitigation or meeting their licensing design basis
requirements is not reduced/diminished.
There are no design changes associated with this TS amendment.
The DC power system/batteries will remain designed with adequate
independency, redundancy, capacity and testability to permit the
functioning required of the engineered safety features. The
batteries will each continue to independently provide this capacity
assuming a failure of a single active component.
The proposed changes will not affect accident initiators or
precursors, not adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions,
and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant
is operated. The proposed changes will not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, systems and components from performing their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event.
The proposed changes do not physically alter safety related
systems nor affect the way in which safety related systems perform
their function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(b) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are to the surveillance requirements only.
The ability of the TS surveillance to ensure that the batteries have
the capacity to perform their specified safety functions with regard
to accident mitigation or meeting their licensing design basis
requirements is not reduced/diminished.
There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes
in the method by which any safety related plant structure, system,
or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. The
proposed changes will not affect the normal method of plant
operation or change any operating parameters. Equipment performance
necessary to fulfill safety analysis missions will be unaffected.
The proposed change will not alter any assumptions required to meet
the safety analysis acceptance criteria.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or
challenges imposed on any safety related system as a result of this
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
(c) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not reduce the ability of the TS
surveillance requirements to ensure that the station batteries have
adequate capacity to perform their engineered safety features
functions with regard to accident mitigation and meeting their
licensing design basis requirements. The lower battery inter-cell
connection resistance values are more restrictive, consistent with
design basis calculations and appropriately identified in
maintenance procedures. In addition, the battery connections quality
is also inherently validated by the TS SR battery performance
testing. The new values for the battery capacity and service life
surveillance requirements are more restrictive and more appropriate
acceptance criteria for verifying battery performance. The reduction
in surveillance intervals for a battery showing signs of degradation
from 18 months to 12 months is more conservative.
The proposed changes do not physically alter safety related
systems. There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no
impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling
(DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak cladding temperature
(LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The applicable
radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to
be met.
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
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.
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 17, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The application proposes changes
to Technical Specifications (TSs) Limiting Condition for Operation of
TS 3.3.3.3, Tables 3.3-5, Accident Monitoring Instrumentation, High
Range-Noble Gas Effluent Monitors, Main Steam Lines, Instrument 19d,
and conforming changes to TS 4.3.3.3, Table 4.3-4, Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, Instrument 19d.
The Main Steam Lines High Range Noble Gas Effluent Monitor, RAD-
6426, is used in post-accident monitoring in response to the
requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3. As a Category 2,
Type E instrument, RAD-6426 does not meet any of the Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.36(c)(2)(ii) screening criteria
for inclusion in the TSs Post Accident Monitoring Table. The proposed
changes would relocate the TS and surveillance requirements for this
instrument to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and related
procedures.
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:
FPL has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification (TS)
changes to determine if a significant hazard is present. The No
Significant Hazards Consideration evaluation required by 10 CFR
50.92 is provided below.
1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The Main Steam Line High-Range Noble Gas Effluent monitor is not
an event initiator, nor is it credited in the mitigation of any
event. Thus, the initiating conditions and assumptions for accidents
described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) remain
as analyzed. The function of the Main Steam Line High-Range Noble
Gas Effluent monitor is to detect and quantify noble gas volumetric
activity released from the Main Steam Safety Valves and/or the
Atmospheric Dump Valves during and following an accident. The Main
Steam Line monitors are used in the Emergency Plan to determine
event action levels. The use of the monitors in the Off-Normal
Operating Procedures, in the Emergency Operating Procedures, and
Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (to determine if a release is
in progress) will not change. Relocation of the technical
specification and surveillance requirements to the UFSAR and related
procedures does not impact the accident analyses in any manner.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The function of the Main Steam Line High-Range Noble Gas
Effluent monitor is to detect and quantify noble gas volumetric
activity released from the Main Steam Safety Valves and/or the
Atmospheric Dump Valves during and following an accident. This
function will not change as a result of the proposed TS changes.
Procedural use of the monitor function, surveillance or calibration
frequency of the monitor to determine operability will not change as
a result of the proposed relocation of the technical specification
and surveillance requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or
[[Page 64394]]
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The function of the Main Steam Line High-Range Noble Gas
Effluent monitor is to detect and quantify noble gas volumetric
activity released from the Main Steam Safety Valves and/or the
Atmospheric Dump Valves during and following an accident. The
relocation of the technical specification and surveillance
requirements of this monitor to the UFSAR and related procedures
does not affect the manner in which any safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The safety analyses are not affected by the proposed TS
changes. The proposed changes do not result in plant operation
outside of design bases, because the function and surveillance of
the monitor for operability remain unchanged.
Based on the above, operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment would 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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
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].
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: September 24, 2010, supplemented
by letter dated March 4, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the licensing
basis, specifically the Radiological Emergency Response Preparedness
(RERP) Plan, to increase the staff augmentation times for the
Operational and Technical Support Centers-related functions from 30 to
60 minutes, and for Emergency Operations Facility-related functions
from 60 to 90 minutes.
Date of issuance: September 23, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75
FR 74093).
The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original
application. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 23, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-
423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010,
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, May 17, 2011, and August 4, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves the Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revises
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such
approval. The amendment specifies that the licensee fully implement and
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
according to the schedule conveyed in the licensee's April 4, 2011,
letter.
Amendment Nos.: 309 and 251.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49:
Amendment revised the respective Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 1, 2011 (76 FR
5616). The supplemental letters contain clarifying information, did not
change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change the
NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards
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 September 30, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: October 8, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated January 6, February 24, and March 8, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised technical
specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting
Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil and lube oil
numerical volume requirements from the TS to the TS Bases so that they
may be modified under licensee control. The TS were
[[Page 64395]]
modified so that the stored diesel fuel oil and lube oil inventory
would require that a 7-day supply be available for each diesel
generator. Condition A and Condition B in the Action table were revised
and Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.8.3.1 and 3.8.3.2 were revised to
reflect the above change.
Date of issuance: October 4, 2011
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 196.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
TSs and license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (76 FR
6833) The supplemental letters dated January 6, February 24, and March
8, 2011 contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC
staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards
consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: October 4, 2011, as supplemented
by letter dated April 6, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the
applicability of Technical Specification 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection
System Instrumentation'' Function 5 (i.e., ``Main Steam Isolation
valve--Closure'') and Function 10 (i.e., ``Turbine Condenser Vacuum--
Low'') for Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 and 3. The change
enables the implementation of a modification that will eliminate these
functions with the reactor switch in STARTUP while in Mode 2 with
reactor pressure greater than or equal to 600 pounds per square inch
(psig).
Date of issuance: October 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the next outage of sufficient duration.
Amendment Nos.: 239, 232.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 1, 2011 (76 FR
5619).
The April 6, 2011, supplement contained clarifying information and
did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-
278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 8, 2011, as supplemented
on August 19, 2011, and September 9, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment modifies the PBAPS
Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.1.1.2 to reflect revised
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values for Operating
Cycle 19. The SLMCPR analysis establishes SLMCPR values that will
ensure that during normal operation and during abnormal operational
transients, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience transition boiling if the limit is not violated.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 284.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-56: Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 22, 2011 (76 FR
52357).
The supplements dated August 19, 2011 and September 9, 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 (NSHC) determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30,
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: June 25, 2010, as supplemented
on August 16, 2010, December 16, 2010, January 26, 2011, and March 25,
2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.1.3, ``Primary
Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs),'' and SR 3.6.1.5, ``Reactor
Building-to-Suppression Chamber Vacuum Breakers,'' to modify the
required level for the liquid nitrogen storage tank.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 282 and 285.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010, (75
FR 74094). The supplements dated August 16, 2010, December 16, 2010,
January 26, 2011, and March 25, 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 September 30, 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: April 12, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, the licensee for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Unit No. 1
(PNPP), requested to amend the PNPP Technical Specification (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. The request is consistent with the guidance
contained in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force Change Traveler 514 (TSTF-514).
TSTF-514 was made available by the NRC on, December 17, 2010 (75 FR
79048) as part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
Date of issuance: October 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 159.
[[Page 64396]]
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR
31373).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: September 29, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the NMP1
Technical Specifications (TS) Sections 3/4.1.5, ``Solenoid-Actuated
Pressure Relief Valves (Automatic Depressurization System),'' and 3/
4.2.9, ``Pressure Relief Systems-Solenoid-Actuated Pressure Relief
Valves (Overpressurization),'' to provide for an alternative means of
testing the main steam electromatic relief valves (ERVs). The proposed
change allows demonstration of the capability of the valves to perform
their safety function without requiring the ERVs to be cycled with
reactor steam pressure while installed in the plant.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
90 days.
Amendment No.: 210.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment
revises the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9826).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 16, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated September 27, 2010, April 6, 2011, and June 30, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Fort
Calhoun Station, Unit 1 (FCS) Technical Specifications (TSs) to
relocate the operating and surveillance requirements for the power-
operated relief valve and pressurizer safety valve acoustic position
indication and tail pipe temperature from TS 2.15, ``Instrumentation
and Control Systems,'' Table 2-5, ``Instrumentation Operating
Requirements for Other Safety Feature Functions,'' Items 3, 4, and 5 to
the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report. The amendment also revised the
surveillance requirement, TS 3.1, ``Instrumentation and Control,''
Table 3-3, ``Minimum Frequencies for Checks, Calibrations and Testing
of Miscellaneous Instrumentation and Controls,'' Items 21, 23, and 24.
Additionally, the TS Table 2-5 associated Note `e' was re-lettered to
Note `a' and TS Table 2-5 footnote `i' to Note `c' was deleted.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2011.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date
of issuance.
Amendment No.: 268.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the operating license and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2011 (76 FR
4388). The supplemental letters dated September 27, 2010, April 6,
2011, and June 30, 2011, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment
is contained in a safety evaluation dated September 30, 2011. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of application for amendments: November 12, 2010, as
supplemented on February 8, May 27, June 15, and August 19, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The changes extend the Completion
Time (CT) specified in Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC
Sources--Operating,'' for Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) A, B, C,
D, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D from 7 days to 14 days when one EDG is inoperable,
provided a supplemental power source is available during the CT
extension period.
Date of issuance: October 5, 2011.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--280, Unit 2--307, and Unit 3--266.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010 (75
FR 77917). The supplements dated February 8, May 27, June 15, and
August 19, 2011, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: April 27, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: These amendments revise Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.4.15 ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: September 28, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 265/246.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the licenses and the technical specifications. Specifically, the
amendments 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 leakage
detection monitors are inoperable.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR
31377).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
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
[[Page 64397]]
amendments that the application for the amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, 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].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
[[Page 64398]]
material issue of law or fact.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner
to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
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
[[Page 64399]]
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.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc.,
Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications to allow disarming either the supply breaker
or the field breaker to the motor generator set for an idle
recirculation pump when operating in single loop.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 249.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Public Comments Requested as to Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration (NSHC)
No. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding
of emergency circumstances, and final determination of no significant
hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
September 30, 2011.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6th day of October 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-26893 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P