[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59259-59269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0498]
Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission 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 22, 2009 to November 4, 2009. The
last biweekly notice was published on November 3, 2009 (74 FR 56882).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking
and Directives Branch (RDB), 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 RDB 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.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's
[[Page 59260]]
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 petitioner/requestor 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
petitioner/requestor 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/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor 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, which the NRC
promulgated in August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). 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 petitioner/requestor
should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (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/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
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.
Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate,
had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it 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 filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE 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
EIE 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 through the ``Contact Us'' link
located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC Meta-System Help Desk, which is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding government holidays. The Meta-System Help Desk can be
contacted by telephone at 1-866-672-7640 or by e-mail at
[email protected].
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.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the request and/
or petition should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a
[[Page 59261]]
balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or
a 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 submissions.
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 records will be accessible from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 9, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.7, ``Crane Travel--Fuel Handling
Building,'' to permit certain operations needed for dry cask storage of
spent nuclear fuel. Specifically, the proposed change to this TS (while
continuing to prohibit travel of a heavy load over irradiated fuel
assemblies in the spent fuel pool) would permit travel of loads in
excess of 2,000 pounds (lbs) over a transfer cask containing irradiated
fuel assemblies, provided a single-failure-proof handling system is
used.
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 FHB [fuel handling building] cask crane will be upgraded to
meet the applicable single-failure-proof criteria of NUREG 0554
(Reference 7.10 [NUREG-0554, Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for Nuclear
Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1979]) and
NUREG 0612 (Reference 7.13 [NUREG-0612, Control of Heavy Loads at
Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1980
(ADAMS Accession No. ML070250180)] for the modification of the
existing non single-failure-proof crane. Due to the reliability of
this upgraded handling system, a load drop accident will not be
considered a credible event. While loads in excess of 2000 lbs shall
continue to be prohibited from travel over irradiated fuel
assemblies in the spent fuel pool by the WF3 [Waterford 3] Technical
Specifications, heavy loads will be permitted to travel over
irradiated fuel assemblies in a transfer cask, using a single-
failure-proof handling system as described in NUREG-0800 Section
9.1.5 Paragraph III.4.C (Reference 7.9 [NUREG-0800 Section 9.1.5
Rev. 1, Standard Review Plan for Overhead Heavy Load Handling
Systems, March 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062260190)]), to enable
the conduct of dry cask storage loading/unloading operations.
Specifically, this will enable the MPC [multi-purpose canister] lid
and its associated lifting apparatus to travel over irradiated fuel
assemblies in a MPC basket. The probability of dropping a load that
weighs in excess of 2000 lbs onto an irradiated fuel assembly is not
increased as a result of the reliability of the single-failure-proof
handling system.
The proposed change does not affect the consequences of any
accidents previously evaluated in the WF3 UFSAR [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report] (Reference 7.1 [Waterford Steam Electric
Station Unit No. 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision
302, December 2008]). The change involves the travel of heavy loads
over irradiated fuel assemblies in a transfer cask using a single-
failure-proof handling system. Under these circumstances, no new
load drop accidents are postulated and no changes to the
probabilities or consequences of accidents previously evaluated are
involved.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Section 9.1 of the WF3 UFSAR evaluates fuel storage and handling
operations. Section 15.7.3.4 of the WF3 UFSAR discusses the analysis
of design basis fuel handling accidents involving drop of an
irradiated assembly resulting in multiple fuel rod failures and
consequent release of radioactivity. The change involves the travel
of heavy loads over irradiated fuel assemblies in a transfer cask
using a single-failure-proof handling system. Under these
circumstances, no new or different load drop accidents are
postulated to occur and there are no changes in any of the load drop
accidents previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The revised Technical Specification changes do not involve a
reduction in any margin of safety. Technical Specification 3/4.9.7
currently prohibits travel of heavy loads over irradiated fuel
assemblies in the FHB. Proposed changes to this specification will
continue to restrict FHB cask crane movements so that travel of
heavy loads over irradiated fuel assemblies in the FHB are not
permitted, with the single exception of heavy loads over irradiated
fuel assemblies in a transfer cask, in order to enable dry cask
storage operations. This operation is only permitted when the heavy
load is handled using a single-failure-proof handling system. Due to
the reliability of this upgraded handling system that complies with
the guidance of NUREG-0800 Section 9.1.5 Paragraph III.4.C
(Reference 7.9) for a single-failure-proof handling system, a load
drop accident is not considered a credible event. Under these
circumstances, no new load drop accidents are postulated and no
reductions in margins of safety are involved.
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: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify a Surveillance Requirement (SR) regarding the start time tests
for the Division 3 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) to provide
consistency with existing similar Technical Specification (TS) SRs and
the time provided in the licensing basis emergency core cooling system
analyses.
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?
[[Page 59262]]
Response: No.
The proposed amendment corrects and makes consistent the
acceptance criteria for the [Perry Nuclear Power Plant] PNPP TS SR
pertaining to the Division 3 EDG. The EDGs mitigate the consequences
of previously evaluated accidents involving a loss of offsite power.
The EDGs are used to support mitigation of the consequences of an
accident, but they are not considered as the initiator of any
previously analyzed accident.
The proposed amendment will continue to ensure the EDGs perform
their function when called upon to mitigate the consequences of
events. The proposed revision to the TS SRs will continue to
maintain the capability of the Division 3 [High Pressure Core Spray]
HPCS system to respond within the times assumed in the Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS) analyses.
The proposed amendment does not affect the design of the EDGs,
the interfaces between the EDGs and other plant systems, or the
function and reliability of the EDGs. Thus, the EDGs will continue
to be capable of performing their accident mitigation function and
there is no impact to the radiological consequences determined in
any accident analysis.
As such, the proposed amendment continues to provide adequate
assurance of an operable EDG and does not involve any increase to
the probability or to the consequences of any 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 an amendment that introduces no new mode
of plant operation and it does not involve physical modification to
the plant. New equipment is not installed with the proposed
amendment, nor does the proposed amendment cause existing equipment
to be operated in a new or different manner.
Since the proposed amendment does not involve a change to the
plant design or operation, no new system interactions are created by
this change. The proposed amendment does not produce any parameters
or conditions that could contribute to the initiation of accidents
different from those already evaluated in the Updated Safety
Analysis Report. The change to the affected TS SR does not affect
the assumed accident performance of the EDG, nor any plant
structure, system or component previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is an amendment that does not impact EDG
performance as incorporated in the design basis analyses, including
the capability for the EDG to attain and maintain required voltage
and frequency for accepting and supporting plant safety loads should
an EDG start signal be received. The operability of the EDG
continues to be determined as required to provide emergency power to
plant equipment that mitigates the consequences of a transient or
accident, and maintains the HPCS system's capability to respond
within the time assumed in the accident analyses.
The proposed amendment does not introduce changes to setpoints
or limits established in the accident analysis. As a result of the
above considerations, it is concluded that implementation of 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Stephen J. Campbell.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
correct editorial items in the Technical Specifications (TS) and the
Facility Operating License (FOL).
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 proposed changes to TS and the FOL are administrative in
nature that correct typographical errors, correct format errors,
correct inconsistencies between Units, or delete historical
requirements that have expired. These changes do not affect the
intent of any TS requirements.
The proposed change does not have any impact on structures,
systems and components (SSCs) of the plant, and no effect on plant
operations. The proposed change does not impact any accident
initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any
equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore, this
proposed change does not represent 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 changes to TS and the FOL are administrative in
nature that correct typographical errors, correct format errors,
correct inconsistencies between Units, or delete historical
requirements that have expired. These changes do not affect the
intent of any TS requirements.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change will not impose any new or different
requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident
precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there is no
change in the types or increases in the amounts of any effluent that
may be released off-site and there is no increase in individual or
cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to TS and the FOL are administrative in
nature that correct typographical errors, correct format errors,
correct inconsistencies between Units, or delete historical
requirements that have expired. These changes do not affect the
intent of any TS requirements.
The proposed change incorporates corrections to the TS and FOL
and results in improved accuracy of these licensing documents. There
is no change to any design basis, licensing basis or safety limit,
no change to any parameters; consequently no safety margins are
affected. 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: Vincent Zabielski, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-272, Salem Nuclear Generating Station,
Unit No. 1, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification 6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment Leakage
Rate Testing Program,'' to allow a one-time extension of the
containment Type A integrated leakage rate test interval from 10 to 15
years.
[[Page 59263]]
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 would revise Technical Specification (TS)
6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to
permit a one-time extension of the containment Type A Integrated
Leak Rate Test (ILRT) from ten to fifteen years.
The function of the containment is to isolate and contain
fission products released from the reactor coolant system following
a design basis Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) and to confine the
postulated release of radioactive material to within limits. The
test interval associated with the performance of containment leakage
testing is not an initiating event for any accident previously
evaluated. There are no physical changes being made to the
containment structure and no change made to the containment
allowable leakage rate specified in Technical Specifications.
During the extended test interval, containment integrity will
continue to be assured by programs for local leak rate testing and
containment inspections are routinely performed as required by [the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code (Code)] which demonstrates the structural integrity of
the primary containment. The proposed changes do not affect
performance of the containment, reactor operations or accident
analysis.
The risk assessment of the proposed change has concluded that
there is not a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident as measured by the Large Early Release Frequency,
Population Dose, and Conditional Containment Failure Frequency.
These results show that an ILRT test extension will not represent a
significant increase in 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 amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change for a one-time, five-year extension of the
Type A test makes no physical changes to the plant or to plant
operations. No credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions or
accident initiators are being introduced by the proposed change.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The integrity of the containment penetrations and isolation
valves is verified through Type B and Type C local leak rate tests
(LLRTs) and the overall leak tight integrity of the containment is
verified by a Type A ILRT, as required by [Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50], Appendix J, ``Primary
Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power
Reactors.'' The proposed change does not affect the method or
acceptance criteria for Type A, B and C testing. During the extended
test interval, containment inspections performed in accordance with
the requirements of the [ASME Code], Section XI, ``Inservice
Inspection,'' and 10 CFR 50.65, ``[Requirements for monitoring the
effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants],'' provide
assurance that the containment will not degrade in a manner that is
only detectable by Type A testing.
The effect of the proposed change on Large Early Release
Frequency, person-rem, and Conditional Containment Failure Frequency
was determined not to be 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: Vincent Zabielski, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment request: August 10, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' to
allow a 7-day Completion Time for the turbine-driven AFW pump if the
inoperability occurs in MODE 3, following a refueling outage and if
MODE 2 had not been entered. This change is based on the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) traveler, TSTF-340, Revision 3.
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 involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment to Technical Specification 3.7.5 would
allow a seven day Completion Time for Condition A for the turbine-
driven Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) pump if the inoperability occurs in
MODE 3 following a refueling outage, if MODE 2 had not been entered.
Extending the Completion Time does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated because: (1) The proposed amendment does not
represent a change to the system design, (2) the proposed amendment
does not prevent the safety function of the AFW system from being
performed, since the other fully redundant essential trains are
required to be operable, (3) the proposed amendment does not alter,
degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in any accident
described in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) from being performed
since the other trains of AFW are required to be operable, (4) the
proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions previously made in
evaluating radiological consequences, and (5) the proposed amendment
does not affect the integrity of any fission product barrier. No
other safety related equipment is affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, this proposed amendment 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 changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment to Technical Specification 3.7.5 would
allow a seven day Completion Time for Condition A for the turbine-
driven AFW pump if the inoperability occurs in MODE 3 following a
refueling outage, if MODE 2 had not been entered. Extending the
Completion Time does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated
because: (1) The proposed amendment does not represent a change to
the system design, (2) the proposed amendment does not alter how
equipment is operated or the ability of the system to deliver the
required AFW flow, and (3) the proposed amendment does not affect
any other safety related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
[[Page 59264]]
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The SONGS safety analysis credits AFW pump delivery of 500
[gallons per minute] gpm at a steam generator pressure of 1097
[pounds per square inch absolute] psia and 700 gpm at a steam
generator pressure of 890 psia to meet Accident Analysis flow
requirements.
The proposed amendment to Technical Specification 3.7.5 would
allow a seven day Completion Time for Condition A for the turbine-
driven AFW pump if the inoperability occurs in MODE 3 following a
refueling outage, if MODE 2 had not been entered. Extending the
Completion Time does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety because: (1) During a return to power operations following
a refueling outage, decay heat is at its lowest levels, (2) the
other AFW trains are required to be OPERABLE when MODE 3 is entered,
[and] (3) the motor-driven AFW train can provide sufficient flow to
remove decay heat and cool the unit to Shutdown Cooling System entry
conditions from power operations.
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
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete paragraph d of Technical Specification 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,''
superseded by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26,
Subpart I.
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. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change removes Technical Specification (TS)
restrictions on working hours for personnel who perform safety
related functions. The TS restrictions are superseded by the worker
fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26. The proposed change does not
impact the physical configuration or function of plant structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Worker fatigue
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Worker
fatigue is not an assumption in the consequence mitigation of any
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
Working hours will continue to be controlled in accordance with NRC
requirements. The new rule allows for deviations from controls to
mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety or as necessary to
maintain the security of the facility. This ensures that the new
rule will not unnecessarily restrict working hours and thereby
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the plant configuration,
require new plant equipment to be installed, alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or effect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed change removes TS restrictions on working hours for
personnel who perform safety related functions. The TS restrictions
are superseded by the worker fatigue requirements in 10 CFR Part 26.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to plant
or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does 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 this change. The
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Removal of plant-specific TS administrative requirements will
not reduce a margin of safety because the requirements in 10 CFR
Part 26 are adequate to ensure that worker fatigue is managed.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: L. Raghavan.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego Count, New York
Date of application for amendment: July 2, 2009, as supplemented
October 5, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TS) by removing position indication for
the relief valves from TS 3.6.11, ``Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation.'' The proposed amendment would also correct an
editorial error in the title of Table 4.6.11.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
October 14, 2009 (74 FR 52826).
Expiration date of individual notice: December 14, 2009.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: September 18, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would modify
Technical Specification 3.2.9.1 and
[[Page 59265]]
4.2.7.1, ``Primary Coolant System Pressure Isolation Values,'' to
incorporate requirements that are consistent with Section 3.4.5 of the
Improved Standard TSs, NUREG-1433, Revision 3.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
October 14, 2009 (74 FR 52824).
Expiration date of individual notice: December 14, 2009.
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 records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
Cliffs Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Docket No. 72-8,
Calvert County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments: January 22, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated February 26, April 8, June 25, July 27,
October 15, 19, 25 (two letters) 26, and 28, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments conform the
licenses to reflect the direct transfer of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant, Inc. to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, as approved by
Commission Order dated October, 2009. Transfer of the license will also
authorize Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC to store spent fuel
in the Calvert Cliffs independent spent fuel storage installation.
Date of issuance: October 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 295 and 271.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 7, 2009 (74 FR
21413).
The letters dated February 26, April 8, June 25, July 27, October
15, October 19, October 25 (two letters), October 26, and October 28,
2009, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: The NRC
received comments from a member of the public on May 22, 2009. The
comments did not provide any information additional to that in the
application, nor did they provide any information contradictory to that
provided in the application.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 14, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments implemented
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Changes Travelers TSTF-479,
Revision 0, ``Changes to Reflect Revision of [Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations] 10 CFR 50.55a,'' and TSTF-497, Revision 0, ``Limit
Inservice Testing [IST] Program SR [Surveillance Requirements] 3.0.2
Application to Frequencies of 2 Years or Less.'' TSTF-479 and TSTF-497
revised the Technical Specification Administrative Controls section
pertaining to requirements for the IST Program, consistent with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) for pumps and valves which are
classified as American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code, Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3.
Date of issuance: October 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 252 and 247.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications. The amendment
also authorizes revisions to the Updated Facility Safety Analysis
Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2009 (74 FR
15769).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 8, 2008, supplemented
by letter dated May 5, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing and updating portions of the
TSs which are out of date or are obsolete including footnotes and
references.
Date of issuance: October 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 253 and 248.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2009 (74 FR
15769). The supplement dated May 5, 2009 provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand
[[Page 59266]]
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Entergy) Docket No. 50-247, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: March 25, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added two Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS) valves to Technical Specifications (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.1 for checking valve position every
7 days. The TS SR is designed to verify that ECCS valves whose single
failure could cause loss of the ECCS function are in the required
position with ac power removed so that misalignment or single failure
cannot prevent completion of the ECCS function.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to entering Mode 4 during startup from 2R19.
Amendment No.: 263.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendment
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR
23444).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 29, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of application for amendment: May 5, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.7.C to change requirements
related to the schedule for performing the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J,
Type A test. Specifically, the proposed change would change the TS from
requiring the test ``no later than April 2010'' to ``prior to startup
from the April 2010 refuel outage.''
Date of Issuance: October 28, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 240.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR
31320).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated October 28, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: October 22, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated January 12 and October 22, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a new license
condition 2.c.(10) on the control room envelope (CRE) habitability
program; revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related
to the CRE habitability in TS 3.7.9, ``Control Room Emergency
Ventilation System (CREVS)''; and added a new administrative controls
program, TS 5.5.5, ``Control Room Envelope Habitability Program.''
These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Industry/TS Task
Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room
Envelope Habitability.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), as
part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the implementation of the Alternate Source Term
license Amendment No. 238.
Amendment No.: 239.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (72
FR 71708). The supplemental letters dated January 12 and October 22,
2009 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 29, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: October 22, 2007, as
supplemented by letter dated January 12, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a new license
condition 2.c.(11) on the control room envelope (CRE) habitability
program; revised Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to
the CRE habitability in TS 3/4.7.6, ``Control Room Emergency
Ventilation and Air Conditioning System''; and added a new
administrative controls program, TS 6.5.12, ``Control Room Envelope
Habitability Program.'' These changes are consistent with the NRC-
approved Industry/TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-448,
Revision 3, ``Control Room Envelope Habitability.'' The availability of
this TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2007 (72 FR 2022), as part of the Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of the implementation of the Alternate
Source Term license Amendment No. 238 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 1.
Amendment No.: 288.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (72
FR 71710). The supplemental letter dated January 12, 2009 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 29, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 3, 2009, as supplemented by letters
dated September 22 and October 6, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) safety limit in Technical
Specification
[[Page 59267]]
(TS) 2.1.1.1, ``DNBR,'' based upon the Combustion Engineering 16x16
Next Generation Fuel design and the associated departure from nucleate
boiling correlations.
Date of issuance: November 3, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
after the current cycle (Cycle 16) is completed and prior to the start
of Cycle 17.
Amendment No.: 224.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 14, 2009 (74 FR
34047). The supplements dated September 22 and October 6, 2009 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 November 3, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generating Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: June 9, 2008, as supplemented by
letters dated March 30, 2009 and September 4, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Surveillance
Requirement 4.2.D to decrease the frequency of performing control rod
drive rod notch testing from weekly to once per 31 days.
Date of issuance: October 22, 2009.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 275.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 12, 2008 (73 FR
46928). The supplements dated March 30, 2009 and September 4, 2009
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 2009.
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: April 22, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise the
inservice testing (IST) requirements from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code,
Section XI, to the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear
Power Plants (OM Code) and applicable addenda. This change would
eliminate the ASME Code inconsistency between the IST program and the
TS as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
50.55a(f)(5)(ii). Additionally, the amendment would extend the
applicability of surveillance requirement (SR) 3.0.2 provisions to
other normal and accelerated frequencies specified as 2 years or less
in the IST program. Finally, the amendment will remove the phrase
``including applicable supports'' from TS Section 5.5.6. TS Section
5.5.6, IST Program, and the associated TS Bases would be revised under
this TS amendment.
Date of issuance: October 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 189.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (74 FR
40238).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendments: October 9, 2007, as
supplemented by letter dated January 30, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
technical specifications to risk-inform requirements regarding selected
Required Action End States as provided in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-423, Revision 0, ``Technical
Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A, Revision 2.''
Date of issuance: October 21, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 245/240.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30: The
amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (70
FR 74037).
The January 30, 2009, 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 21, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: July 23, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated September 30 and October 26, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
inspection scope and repair requirments of Technical Specification (TS)
6.8.4.j, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program'' and to the reporting
requirements of TS 6.9.1.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Inspection
Report.''
Date of issuance: October 30, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 241 and 236.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2009 (74 FR
44405).
The supplements dated September 30 and October 26, 2009, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 59268]]
FPL 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: November 25, 2008 as
supplemented by letters dated March 4, April 8, and September 15, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: Amend Renewed Operating Licenses
DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 to
incorporate new Large-Break LOCA (LBLOCA) analyses using the realistic
LBLOCA methodology contained in Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved
WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large-Break LOCA Evaluation Methodology
Using Automated Statistical Treatment of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM),''
and to revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.4.b to include reference
to WCAP-16009-P-A.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--235, Unit 2--239.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (74 FR
1714).
The March 4, April 8, and September 15, 2009, supplements,
contained clarifying information and did not change the 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 29, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: July 9, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions;'' TS 3.1.8, ``Rod Position
Indication;'' TS 3.2.1, ``Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor;'' TS 3.2.4,
``Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR);'' and TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip
System (RTS) Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: October 27, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than October 31, 2010.
Amendment No.: 82.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised TSs 1.1,
3.1.8, 3.2.1, 3.2.4, and 3.3.1.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (74 FR
42930).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 27, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: October 9, 2008, as
supplemented by letters dated November 17, 2008, and December 10, 2008.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to (1) delete TS 3.19, ``Main Control Room
Bottled Air System,'' (2) add new TS 3.7F, ``MCR/ESGR Envelope
Isolation Actuation Instrumentation'', to provide operability
requirements for the manual initiation of the MCR/ESGR envelope
isolation actuation instrumentation, (3) replace existing TS 3.10.A.12
and TS 3.10. B.5, which include operability requirements for the MCR
bottled air system during refueling operations and irradiated fuel
movement, respectively, with TS operability requirements for manual
actuation of the MCR/ESGR envelope isolation actuation instrumentation
during these conditions, (4) replace existing Item 15, ``Control Room
Bottled Air Test,'' of TS Table 4.1-2A, ``Minimum Frequency for
Equipment Tests,'' with new item 15, ``MCR/ESGR Envelope Isolation
Actuation Instrumentation--Manual,'' surveillance requirements, (5)
revise TS 6.4.R, ``Main Control Room/Emergency Switchgear Room (MCR/
ESGR) Envelope Habitability Program,'' to delete reference to the MCR
bottled air system and the emergency habitability system, (6) delete
Specification 3.19, ``Main Control Room Bottled Air System,'' from the
TS Table of Contents.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2009.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 266, 265.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 16, 2008 (73
FR 76415).
The supplements dated November 17, 2008 and December 10, 2008
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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 29, 2009.
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: March 26, July 8, 16, and 24,
2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments increase each unit's
rated thermal power (RTP) level from 2893 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
2940 MWt, and made technical specification changes as necessary to
support operation at the uprated power level. The change is an increase
in RTP of approximately 1.6 percent.
Date of issuance: October 22, 2009.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance and shall be implemented by July 14, 2010. Accordingly,
scheduled completion dates listed in License Condition 2.H., shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Commission within the stated time
periods following the issuance of the condition and shall determine the
environmental qualification service life of the excore detectors and
incorporate changes in the qualified lifetime of this equipment into
environmental qualification program documentation, prior to operating
above the current maximum operating level of 2893 MWt, as described in
Virginia Electric and Power Company's letters dated March 26, 2009,
July 8, 2009, and July 24, 2009.
Amendment Nos.: 257 and 238.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (74 FR
23449).
The supplements dated July 8, 16, and 24, 2009, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 2009.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 59269]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of November 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-27406 Filed 11-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P