[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67485-67495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28162]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0252]
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 October 6, 2011 to October 19, 2011. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 18, 2011 (76 FR 64388).
Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0252 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-
2011-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher (301)
492-3668; email [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
email 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-2011-0252.
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), 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
[[Page 67486]]
margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at (301) 492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 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 email 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
[[Page 67487]]
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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 email 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 O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received
at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1 -(800) -397-
4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK), Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: May 9, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the KPS current licensing basis (CLB) regarding the manner in
which service water is supplied to the component cooling heat
exchangers by the main return valves and the bypass flow control
valves.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would modify the KPS current licensing
basis by changing the automatic function of providing service water
flow to the component cooling heat exchangers, from being provided
by control
[[Page 67488]]
of the main service water return valves to being provided by the
service water bypass flow control valves. The probability of
occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not affected, since
the affected equipment is used to mitigate certain design basis
accidents (DBA's) and does not contribute to the initiation of any
previously evaluated accidents.
As a result of a physical plant modification, manual action is
now required to open the service water main return valves to the
component cooling heat exchangers for initiation of the sump
recirculation phase of LOCA mitigation. These valves were previously
designed to open upon receipt of an SI signal. However, automatic
action to supply service water during the immediate injection phase
of a postulated accident continues to be in place following this
modification without any adverse functional impact. This automatic
action is performed by the bypass flow control valves (i.e., the
temperature control valves) in the same manner as previously
performed by the main return valves. The bypass flow control valves
automatically supply required cooling water flow, consistent with
existing analyses for the injection phase of the postulated
accident. The service water main return valves are only needed to be
opened during the subsequent recirculation phase of safety injection
(SI) for LOCA mitigation. Transition to the recirculation phase of
SI cooling previously was, and currently remains, achieved by a
series of manual actions. Adding an additional step to the procedure
controlling this transition does not significantly impact the
probability of correctly performing this activity. Since the
required automatic function is maintained, and the additional manual
action required to perform injection to recirculation phase
realignment is simple, this change does not significantly increase
the probability of a malfunction of a component important to safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes the manner in which service water
is supplied to the component cooling heat exchangers immediately
after a DBA involving an SI signal. Previously, service water was
automatically supplied to the component cooling heat exchangers
through the service water main return valves. This design has been
changed, and currently service water is supplied to the component
cooling heat exchangers through the service water bypass flow
control valves. No physical changes are being made to any other
portion of the plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being
introduced. The proposed change does not result in any new
mechanisms that could initiate damage to the reactor or its
principal safety barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system, or primary containment).
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect the inputs or assumptions
of any of the design basis analyses that demonstrate the integrity
of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, or containment during
accident conditions. The automatic function of supplying required
cooling water to the component cooling heat exchangers at the onset
of a postulated accident is not being changed. Removal of the
automatic opening signal from the service water main return valves
will require that these valves be manually opened during the latter
stages of the postulated accident when aligning for containment sump
recirculation cooling. However, aligning for containment sump
recirculation cooling had previously credited a series of manual
actions within the analyses for the design basis accident. The added
step of opening the service water main return valves does not
significantly impact the ability of operators to perform this
alignment. Furthermore, by reducing the initial excess supply of
cooling water (via lower capacity valves) to the component cooling
system heat exchangers, additional cooling water is available to the
containment fan coil units for mitigating the postulated accident
and the margin to two-phase flow in the affected cooling system is
improved. Thus, DEK considers that the proposed changes will
increase overall effectiveness of the engineered safety features'
response to postulated accidents involving initiation of an SI
signal.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., Counsel for Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.,
120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: January 5, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated October 6, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.3, ``Safety/Relief Valves
(SRVs) and Safety Valves (SVs).'' The proposed amendment would reduce
the number of SRVs required to be OPERABLE for over-pressure protection
(OPP) from eight to seven.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The number of SRVs installed in the plant and their
configuration are not being changed by this amendment. Since there
are no changes to any physical configuration of the SRVs nor to
their lift setpoints, no new accident initiators are introduced. The
plant will continue to be operated in the same manner as before and
will respond to accidents in the same manner as before. Only the
number of SRVs required to be operable is being changed. Therefore,
the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The change does, in fact, reduce the number of SRVs originally
assumed to be operable in design basis accident mitigation
calculations. The General Electric Hitachi (GEH) analysis has shown
that reducing the number of SRVs required to be operable from eight
to six continues to preserve substantial margin to OPP and ATWS
[anticipated transient without scram] limits. With one SRV
inoperable, i.e. reducing the number of required operable SRVs from
eight to seven, the reduction in margin is well within the safety
design bases of the nuclear pressure relief system. Therefore, the
functioning of fewer SRVs continues to accomplish the required
pressure relief for the analyzed transients and events.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change the design function or
operation of the SRVs. The change does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident since there is no credible new
failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident initiator not considered
in the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The safety margins affected by this proposed change are the OPP
pressure relief margin to Reactor Coolant System Pressure Boundary
design pressure and the ATWS pressure relief margin to the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Level `C' Service Limit. The GEH
analysis performed to support this change demonstrates the margin
between maximum pressure rise,
[[Page 67489]]
upon SRV actuation, and the OPP limit continues to be substantial.
For ATWS with one SRV inoperable, available remaining margin to the
Level C Service limit is still sufficient to ensure maximum pressure
and required steam flows are within analysis success criteria. The
analysis success criteria are, in turn, below the accident and
transient limits. The change does not exceed a design basis or
safety limit, and it does not significantly reduce the margin of
safety. Thus, the margin reduction for one SRV inoperable is not
significant.
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. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 26, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise several Technical Specification (TS) pages to correct formatting
errors and typographical errors, including pages within TS 3.1.3,
``Control Rod OPERABILITY,'' TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' TS
3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' TS
3.3.5.1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' TS
3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.2,
``Secondary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.1, ``Loss
of Power (LOP) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.2, ``Reactor Protection
System (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring,'' TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS--
Operating,'' TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Shutdown,'' TS 3.6.1.1, ``Primary
Containment,'' TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' TS
3.7.4, ``Control Room Emergency Filter (CREF) System,'' TS 3.8.1, ``AC
[Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' TS 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel
Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' TS 5.2, ``Organization,'' TS 5.5,
``Programs and Manuals,'' and TS 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals''). In
addition, the amendment would revise TS 5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing
Program,'' to remove an expired one-time exception of the 5-year
frequency requirement for setpoint testing of safety valve MSRV-70ARV.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes correct formatting and typographical errors
and [remove] an expired one-time exception. Administrative and
editorial changes such as these are not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an
accident with the incorporation of these administrative and
editorial changes are not different than the consequences of the
same accident without these changes. As a result, the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by these
changes.
Based on the above, 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 amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not modify the plant design, nor do the
proposed changes alter the operation of the plant or equipment
involved in either routine plant operation or in the mitigation of
the design basis accidents. The proposed changes are editorial or
administrative only.
Based on the above, it is concluded that 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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes consist of administrative and editorial
changes to correct formatting and typographical errors and to remove
an expired one-time exception. The changes do not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed
changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration
outside of the design basis.
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 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. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 1, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation 3.7.9
``Ultimate Heat Sink.'' The proposed changes involve changing the
criteria for Nuclear Service Cooling Water (NSCW) tower three and four
fan operation. These proposed changes include an increase in the wet
bulb temperature limit for three fan operation and addition of a
Condition that allows a 7-day Completion Time for a specific situation.
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 changes do not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The Ultimate Heat Sink is
not an initiator to any analyzed accident sequence. Operation in
accordance with the proposed technical specification will continue
to ensure that the Ultimate Heat Sink remains capable of performing
its safety function and that all analyzed accidents will continue to
be mitigated as previously analyzed. The proposed technical
specification changes will not initiate any accident; therefore, the
probability or consequences of an accident have not been increased.
Therefore, these changes do 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 changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident than any accident already evaluated in
the FSAR. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms or limiting
single failures are introduced as result of the proposed
[[Page 67490]]
changes. The changes have no adverse effects on any safety-related
system.
Therefore, all accident analyses criteria continue to be met and
these 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Based on the operability of the required NSCW cooling tower
fans, the accident analysis assumptions continue to be met with
enactment of the proposed changes. The system's design and operation
are not affected by the proposed changes. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not altered by the proposed changes nor is
there a change to any Safety Analysis Limit. Finally, the proposed
compensatory measures will provide further assurance that no
significant reduction in safety margin will occur. The proposed
changes provide reasonable assurance that the NSCW system will
continue to perform its intended safety functions.
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 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.
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: August 23, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the application of Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS)
to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and
Cleanup Filtration System.'' The proposed change would correct a
potential misapplication of the Configuration Risk Management Program
(CRMP) that is currently allowed by the TSs.
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 allows the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7,
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the
condition where one train of the Control Room Makeup and Cleanup
Filtration System is inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The change deletes application of the CRMP where more than
one train of CRHVAC is inoperable. Some action steps are re-numbered
as an administrative change.
The change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change
does not involve a change to the plant or its modes of operation. In
addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be
applied to effectively manage the availability of required
structures, systems, and components to assure there is no
significant increase in the probability of an accident.
This proposed change does not increase the consequences of an
accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the
affected systems is not changed and the risk-informed configuration
management program will be applied to effectively manage the
availability of structures, systems, and components required to
mitigate the consequences of an accident.
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 change allows the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP) to be applied to TS 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and
Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the condition where one train of
the Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System is inoperable
only due to the unavailability of cooling. The change deletes
application of the CRMP where more than one train of CRHVAC is
inoperable. Some action steps are renumbered as an administrative
change.
The proposed change will not alter the plant configuration (no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any
unusual operator actions. The proposed change will not alter the way
any structure, system, or component functions, and will not
significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. The
response of the plant and the operators following an accident will
not be different. In addition, the proposed change does not
introduce any new failure modes.
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 to a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP) to be applied to TS 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and
Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the condition where one train of
the Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration System is inoperable
only due to the unavailability of cooling. The change deletes
application of the CRMP where more than one train of CRHVAC is
inoperable. Some action steps are renumbered as an administrative
change.
The CRMP implements a risk-informed configuration risk
management program in a manner to assure that adequate margins of
safety are maintained. Application of the configuration risk
management program to TS 3.7.7 complements the risk assessment
required by the Maintenance Rule and effectively manages the risk
for limiting condition for operation when the Control Room Makeup
and Cleanup Filtration Systems are inoperable.
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 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: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 5, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise facility operating license NPF-90 to remove license condition
2.G. This license condition describes reporting requirements of other
requirements in Section 2.C of the facility operating license. The
proposed change is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)-approved change notice published in the Federal Register on
November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67202), announcing the availability of this
improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process. The
Federal Register Notice included a model safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, relating to the
elimination of the license condition involving reporting of violations
of other requirements (typically in License Conditions 2.C) in the
operating license of some commercial nuclear power plants. The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its
application dated October 5, 2011.
[[Page 67491]]
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 change involves the deletion of a reporting
requirement. The change does not affect plant equipment or operating
practices and therefore does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in that it deletes a
reporting requirement. The change does not add new plant equipment,
change existing plant equipment, or affect the operating practices
of the facility. Therefore, the change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change deletes a reporting requirement. The change
does not affect plant equipment or operating practices and therefore
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and
Cooling Systems.'' Specifically, the amendment would revise
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.6.3 for verifying the minimum
required containment cooling train cooling water flow rate. Rather than
require verifying each containment cooling train has a cooling water
flow rate greater than or equal to 2200 gallons per minute (gpm), TS SR
3.6.6.3 would be revised to require verification that the flow rate is
capable of being ``within limits'' for achieving the heat removal rate
assumed in the Callaway Plant safety analyses. This change is supported
by a change in the TS Bases for SR 3.6.6.3 to indicate where the flow
rate limits are specified as well as to note that these limits provide
assurance that the heat removal rate assumed in the Callaway Plant
safety analyses will be achieved. The reason for the proposed change to
TS SR 3.6.6.3 is to ensure that the surveillance verifies each
containment cooling train has a flow rate capable of removing 141.4 x
10\6\ Btu per hour as assumed in the Callaway Plant safety analyses of
record. The assumed heat removal rate does not vary; however, the
cooling water flow rate does change based on changing system
conditions/parameters (e.g., tube plugging and tube fouling) and,
therefore, the cooling water flow rate should not be quantified in the
TS.
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 changes for verifying the minimum required
containment cooling train cooling water flow rate have no impact on
the frequency of occurrence of any of the accidents evaluated in the
FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. Changing from a specific flow
rate to a flow rate ``within limits'' based on current system
parameters has no impact on the likelihood of occurrence of a loss
of coolant accident (LOCA), steam line break (SLB), plant transient,
loss of offsite power (LOOP), or any such accident because the
precursors for such accidents do not involve containment cooling.
The failure or malfunction of a containment cooling train (due, for
example, to an inadequate cooling flow rate) is not itself an
initiator or precursor of any accident previously evaluated.
The CtCS [containment cooling system] and CSS [containment spray
system] provide complementary methods of containment atmosphere
cooling to limit post accident pressure and temperature in
containment to less than the design values. They are designed to
ensure that the heat removal capability required during the post
accident period can be attained. Changing the limit for the minimum
required CtCS cooling train flow from a specified value to ``within
limits'' appropriately accounts for changes in system conditions
while still requiring the heat removal rate specified in the
accident analysis to be met. Consequently, the proposed changes do
not involve a change in the required performance of the CtCS and
therefore do not adversely affect the accident mitigation function
of the CtCS.
The CtCS, operating in conjunction with the containment
ventilation systems, is also designed to limit the ambient
containment air temperature during normal unit operation to less
than the limit specified in LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation]
3.6.5, ``Containment Air Temperature.'' This temperature limitation
ensures that the containment temperature does not exceed the initial
temperature conditions assumed for the DBAs [design basis
accidents]. The proposed change does not impact the capability of
the CtCS to maintain containment temperature to within this initial
temperature condition for DBAs.
The proposed changes will not affect accident initiators or
precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The manner in which the ESW [essential
service water] system is flow balanced to ensure adequate cooling
water flow to all loads required for accident mitigation, including
the containment coolers, will not be changed and is in fact
supported by the proposed changes. In general, therefore, the
proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits.
All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be
met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect
the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the FSAR. Consequently, the applicable
radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
There are no proposed changes in the method by which any safety-
related plant SSC performs its safety function. The proposed changes
will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any
operating parameters. No equipment design or performance
requirements will be affected, including the design and performance
requirements for the CtCS and ESW system. The proposed changes will
not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
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.
[[Page 67492]]
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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The proposed change will have 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 ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor
(FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (F[Delta]H), loss of
coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local
power density, or any other limit or margin of safety. The
applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will
continue to be met since the proposed changes have no impact on the
radiological consequences of any design basis accident.
With respect to the containment, and as already noted, changing
the limit for the minimum required CtCS cooling train flow from a
specified value to ``within limits'' appropriately accounts for
changes in system conditions/parameters while still requiring the
heat removal rate specified in the accident analysis to be met.
Consequently, the CtCS function for limiting post-accident pressure
and temperature in the containment building is not adversely
affected, and the margins between the calculated peak accident
pressure and temperature in the containment and the corresponding
containment design limits are unchanged.
The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillance or alter
the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical
Specifications. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident
analysis will be changed.
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 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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 online 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 email to [email protected].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: January 20, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3 Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.g, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Program,'' to exclude a portion of the tubes below the
top of the steam generator tubesheet from periodic steam generator tube
inspections during Refueling Outage 14 and the subsequent operating
cycle. The amendment also revises the reporting criteria in MPS3 TS
6.9.1.7, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to remove
reference to previous one-time alternate repair criteria and add
reporting requirements specific to temporary alternate repair criteria.
Date of issuance: October 7, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance and prior to Mode 5 startup.
Amendment No.: 252.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (76 FR
39136). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 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 28, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated April 8, 2011 and July 1, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources Operating,'' by removing mode
restrictions to perform certain Surveillance Requirements for the
Division 3 High Pressure Core Spray emergency diesel generator.
Date of issuance: October 17, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 197.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2011 (76 FR
4385). The April 8, 2011, and July 1, 2011, supplements contained
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 67493]]
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments: June 23, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments removed the Table
of Contents from the Technical Specifications and placed them under
licensee control. The Table of Contents is not being eliminated.
Responsibility for maintenance and issuance of the Table of Contents
will transfer from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC.
Date of issuance: October 11, 2011.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 245 (for Unit 1) and 249 (for Unit 2).
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2011 (76 FR
44617).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 11, 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 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 01 F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available documents created or received at the NRC are accessible
online 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 email 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 email 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.
[[Page 67494]]
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 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 email 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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
[[Page 67495]]
E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 email 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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2011, supplemented by
letters dated October 13, 16 and 17, 2011.
Description of amendment request: This amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--
Operating,'' to clarify that a delayed access circuit is temporarily
qualified, until December 12, 2011, as one of two required offsite
circuits between the offsite transmission network and the onsite Class
1E AC electric power distribution system.
Date of issuance: October 17, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 160.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised 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, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated October 17,
2011.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-28162 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P