[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8139-8147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3357]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0055]
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 January 28, 2010, to February 10, 2010. The
last biweekly notice was published on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6408).
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
[[Page 8140]]
following amendment requests involve no significant hazards
consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment
would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 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 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.
[[Page 8141]]
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-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://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 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].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.6.5, ``Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR),'' to replace the existing
[[Page 8142]]
reference for the large break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis
methodology with a reference to WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large Break
LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using Automated Statistical Treatment of
Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM).''
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 revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used
for establishing core operating limits. Accident analyses are not
accident initiators; therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The
analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the acceptance criteria in
10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling
systems for light water nuclear power reactors,'' were met. Large
break LOCA analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC
approved WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions,
limitations and conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
criteria are met; thus, this change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident. No physical changes to
the plant are associated with the proposed change.
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 revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used
for establishing core operating limits. There are no physical
changes being made to the plant as a result of using the
Westinghouse ASTRUM analysis methodology in WCAP-16009-P-A for
performance of the large break LOCA analyses. Large break LOCA
analyses performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved
WCAP-16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are
met. No new modes of plant operation are being introduced. The
configuration, operation, and accident response of the structures or
components are unchanged by use of the new analysis methodology.
Analyses of transient events have confirmed that no transient event
results in a new sequence of events that could lead to a new
accident scenario. The parameters assumed in the analyses are within
the design limits of existing plant equipment.
In addition, employing the Westinghouse ASTRUM large break LOCA
analysis methodology does not create any new failure modes that
could lead to a different kind of accident. The design of systems
remains unchanged and no new equipment or systems have been
installed which could potentially introduce new failure modes or
accident sequences. No changes have been made to instrumentation
actuation setpoints. Adding the reference to WCAP-16009-P-A in TS
Section 5.6.5.b is an administrative change that does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS Section 5.6.5 to incorporate a
new large break LOCA analysis methodology. Specifically, the
proposed change adds WCAP-16009-P-A to TS 5.6.5.b as a method used
for establishing core operating limits.
The analyses using ASTRUM demonstrated that the applicable
acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.46 are met. Margins of safety for
large break LOCAs include quantitative limits for fuel performance
established in 10 CFR 50.46. These acceptance criteria are not being
changed by this proposed new methodology. Large break LOCA analyses
performed consistent with the methodology in NRC approved WCAP-
16009-P-A, including applicable assumptions, limitations and
conditions, demonstrate that 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria are
met; thus, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC
staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2009.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification 3.1.2, ``Reactivity Anomalies,'' to
allow a change in the method of calculating core reactivity for the
purpose of performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance. The
surveillance is currently determined by a comparison of predicted to
actual control rod density. The proposed change would allow performance
of the surveillance by comparison of predicted to measured (or
monitored) core reactivity. The proposed change would not modify the
frequency of the surveillance requirement (SR).
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.
This proposed Technical Specifications change does not affect
any plant systems, structures, or components designed for the
prevention or mitigation of previously evaluated accidents. The
amendment would only change how the reactivity anomaly check is
performed. Verifying that the core reactivity is consistent with
predicted values ensures that accident and transient safety analyses
remain valid. This amendment changes the LCO [Limiting Condition for
Operation] 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 requirements such that, rather than
performing the check by comparing predicted to actual control rod
density, the check is performed by a direct comparison of
keff. Present day on-line core monitoring systems, such
as the one in use at Plant Hatch, are capable of performing the
direct measurement of reactivity.
Therefore, since the reactivity anomaly check will continue to
be performed by a viable method, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence 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.
This Technical Specifications amendment request does not involve
any changes to the operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-
related, or otherwise important to safety, system. All important to
safety systems will continue to be operated, surveillances
performed, and maintained within their design bases. The proposed
changes to the reactivity anomaly LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 will only
provide a new, more efficient method of detecting an unexpected
change in core reactivity.
Since all systems continue to be operated within their design
bases, no new failure modes are introduced and the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident is not created.
[[Page 8143]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This proposed Technical Specifications amendment proposes to
change the LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 method for performing the
reactivity anomaly surveillance from a comparison of predicted to
actual control rod density to a comparison of predicted to actual
keff. The direct comparison of keff provides a
technically superior method of calculating any differences in the
expected core reactivity. The reactivity anomaly check will continue
to be performed at the same frequency as is currently required by
the Tech Specs [Technical Specifications], only the method of
performing the check will be changed. Consequently, core reactivity
assumptions made in safety analyses will continue to be adequately
verified.
The proposed amendment does not therefore 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: Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308-2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 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].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of application of amendments: January 31, 2008, as
supplemented by letters dated April 3 and 29, 2008; May 15 and 28,
2008; September 30, 2008; October 7, 16, 23, and 28, 2008; November 6,
19, and 25, 2008; December 22, 2008; February 27, 2009; March 6, 2009;
April 3 (2 separate letters), and April 30, 2009; June 19, 2009; August
10, 2009; November 5 and 19, 2009; and December 17, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications and approved a change to the licensee's
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report associated with the acceptance of
the new reactor protective system and engineered safeguard protective
system digital upgrade.
Date of Issuance: January 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the installation of the reactor protective system and
engineered safeguard protective system digital upgrade.
Amendment Nos.: 366, 368, and 367.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (73 FR
73663).
The supplements dated April 3 and 29, 2008; May 15 and 28, 2008;
September 30, 2008; October 7, 16, 23, and 28, 2008; November 6, 19,
and 25, 2008; December 22, 2008; February 27, 2009; March 6, 2009;
April 3 (2 separate letters), and April 30, 2009; June 19, 2009; August
10, 2009; November 5 and 19, 2009; and December 17, 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 January 28, 2010.
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: February 16, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical
Specification 5.5.16, ``Reactor Building Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' which currently contains reactor building leak rate criteria
for overall Type A, B, and C testing, but does not specify criteria for
Type B air lock leakage testing. The amendment added criteria for
overall air lock leakage testing and to adopt a low pressure test
method relevant to the air lock door seals. The change is consistent
with NUREG-1430, Revision 3.1, ``Standard Technical Specifications
(STS) for Babcock & Wilcox Plants.''
Date of issuance: February 1, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 242.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 21, 2009 (74 FR
18253).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 1, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: July 30, 2009, as supplemented
on December 29, 2009.
[[Page 8144]]
Brief description of amendments: Technical Specification (TS)
Section 3.6.3.1, ``Containment Atmosphere Dilution (CAD) System,'' is
deleted to modify containment combustible gas control requirements as
permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50,
Section 50.44 (10 CFR 50.44). 10 CFR 50.44 was revised on September 16,
2003, as noticed in the Federal Register (68 FR 54123). The TSs are
revised consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler
478, Revision 2, ``BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Technical Specification
Changes that Implement the Revised Rule for Combustible Gas Control.''
Date of issuance: January 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 274 and 278.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 2009, (74 FR
51331).
The supplement dated December 29, 2009, clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: February 26, 2009, and
supplemented by letter dated May 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows adopting a new
methodology, developed for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating
Plant (CR-3) by AREVA NP, to analyze the rod ejection accident under
extended power uprate conditions. The CR-3 Improved Technical
Specifications Section 5.6.2.18, ``Core Operating Limits Report
(COLR),'' would be revised to add ANP-2788P, ``Crystal River 3 Rod
Ejection Accident Methodology Report,'' to the list of approved methods
used in developing the COLR. In addition, this amendment would delete
Operating License Condition 2.C.(12) that identified topical reports
BAW-10164P-A, Revision 4, and BAW-1 0241 P, Revision 0, that were used
in developing COLR for Cycle 14. These topical reports were
subsequently incorporated into BAW-10179P-A, ``Safety Criteria
Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analysis.''
Date of issuance: January 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during Refuel 17 that is scheduled for fall of 2011.
Amendment No. 237.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revises the
facility operating license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2009 (74 FR
22179).
The supplement dated May 29, 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 January 28, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendments: April 21, 2009, as supplemented
on September 8, 2009, October 9, 2009, and January 26, 2010 (TSC 07-
05).
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendments revised
the Technical Specifications (TSs) and upgraded the Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS) requirements to be more consistent with NUREG-
1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse
Plants.'' The upgrade revised Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 TS
Section 3/4.5.2, ``ECCS Subsystems--Tavg Greater Than or
Equal to 350 [deg]F,'' TS Section 3/4.5.3, ``ECCS Subsystems--
Tavg Less Than 350 [deg]F,'' and the corresponding
surveillance requirements (SRs) that would resolve an inconsistency
between SR 4.5.2.f and plant safety analyses.
Date of issuance: January 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 326 and 319.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 16, 2009 (74 FR
28580).
The supplement letters dated September 8, 2009, October 9, 2009,
and January 26, 2010, 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 January 28, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendments: October 20, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted paragraph g
of Technical Specification (TS) 6.2.2, ``Facility Staff,'' to eliminate
working-hour restrictions in the TS, as similar requirements are
sufficiently imposed by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Part 26, Subpart I. This change is consistent with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-
511, Revision 0, ``Eliminate Working Hour Restrictions from TS 5.2.2 to
Support Compliance with 10 CFR Part 26.''
Date of issuance: February 2, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 327 and 320.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR
62837).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 2, 2010.
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
[[Page 8145]]
standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission
has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation
and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available 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/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's
``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR Reference staff at
1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or
fact.\1\
[[Page 8146]]
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, 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the requestor/petitioner
must 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 requestor/petitioner (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM 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 requestor/petitioner 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 by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 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 petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a 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
[[Page 8147]]
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 submission.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: January 24, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.6.9, ``Distributed Ignition System (DIS),'' to allow
Train B of the DIS to be considered operable with two inoperable
ignitors. The current technical specifications permit no more than one
inoperable ignitor per train for maintaining operability. The proposed
technical specification revision is applicable until the fall 2010
refueling outage, or until the unit enters a mode which allows
replacement of the affected ignitors without exposing personnel to
significant radiation and safety hazards.
Date of issuance: February 4, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 5 days.
Amendment No.: 294.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was
published in The Herald-Palladium newspaper, located in the City of St.
Joseph, Berrien County, Michigan, on January 29 and 30, 2010. The
notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's
proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 4, 2010.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. James M. Petro, Senior Legal Counsel,
American Electric Power, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of February 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-3357 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P