[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33839-33851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0195]
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 May 20, 2010 to June 2, 2010. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30440).
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 Cindy Bladey, Chief,
Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
[[Page 33840]]
(RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be faxed to the
RADB at 301-492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
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.
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
[[Page 33841]]
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].
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 21, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise James A. FitzPatrick Technical Specification (TS) 2.0, ``Safety
Limits (SLs).'' Specifically, TS 2.1.1.2 would replace the listed
safety limit minimum critical power ratio values of 1.07 for two
recirculation loop operation and 1.09 for single recirculation loop
operation with new values of 1.08 and 1.11, respectively.
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 operation of JAF [James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power
Plant] in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The basis of the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) is to ensure no mechanistic fuel damage is calculated to
occur if the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPR values preserve
the existing margin to transition boiling and probability of fuel
damage is not increased. The derivation of the revised SLMCPR for
JAF, for incorporation into the Technical Specifications and its use
to determine plant and cycle-specific thermal limits, has been
performed using NRC approved methods. These plant-specific
calculations are performed each operating cycle and, if necessary,
will require future changes to these values based upon revised core
designs. The revised SLMCPR values do not change the method of
operating the plant and have no effect on the probability of an
accident initiating event or transient.
Based on the above, JAF has concluded that the proposed change
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of JAF in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes result only from a specific analysis for
the JAF core reload design. These changes do not involve any new or
different methods for operating the facility. No new initiating
events or transients will result from these changes.
Based on the above, JAF has concluded that the proposed change
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from those previously evaluated.
3. The operation of JAF in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
[[Page 33842]]
The new SLMCPR is calculated using NRC approved methods with
plant and cycle specific parameters for the current core design. The
SLMCPR value remains conservative enough to ensure that greater than
99.9% of all fuel rods in the core will avoid transition boiling if
the limit is not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding
integrity. The operating MCPR limit is set appropriately above the
safety limit value to ensure adequate margin when the cycle specific
transients are evaluated. Accordingly, the margin of safety is
maintained with the revised values.
As a result, JAF has determined that the proposed change will
not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
On the basis of the above, JAF has determined that operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed change does not involve
a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92(c),
in that it: (1) Does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2)
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; and (3) does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power
Plant (HBPP), Unit 3 Humboldt County, California
Date of amendment request: April 9, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The licensee has proposed
amending the technical specifications (TS) to delete TS 3.1.3, ``Fuel
Storage Pool Liner Water Level.'' TS 3.1.3 places restrictions on the
maximum operating water level in the gap between the stainless steel
liner covering the inside surface of the fuel storage pool and the pool
walls. This TS restriction was originally intended to preclude leakage
from the fuel storage pool to surrounding groundwater, and to preclude
groundwater seepage into the pool. Additional conforming and editorial
changes are also proposed.
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes eliminate the TS requirement to control the
operating water level in the gap between the fuel storage pool liner
and the pool concrete structure and delete the TS sections that are
applicable to Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO).
Elimination of the TS requirements to control liner gap water
level will not increase the probability or consequences of the
previously analyzed (and recently updated) fuel storage pool rupture
accident. The basis of TS 3.1.3 is to preclude both pool leakage to
the surrounding groundwater and groundwater leakage into the pool.
The radiological consequences of pool leakage are conservatively
bounded by the fuel storage pool rupture analysis, an analysis which
demonstrates that the consequences of a breech of the fuel storage
pool are insignificant.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not result in the
modification of any systems, structures or components and will not
affect any parameters or conditions that could contribute to the
initiation of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not result in the modification of any
systems, structures or components and will not affect any parameters
or conditions that could contribute to the initiation of an
accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those
previously evaluated
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The design basis and accident assumptions within the Humboldt
Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 Defueled Safety Analysis Report and
the TS relating to spent fuel are no longer applicable. The proposed
changes do not affect remaining plant operations, nor structures,
systems, or components supporting decommissioning activities. In
addition, the proposed changes do not result in a change in initial
conditions, system response time, or in any other parameter
affecting the course of a decommissioning activity accident
analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes will not involve a
significant reduction in the 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: Ms. Jennifer K. Post, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, CA.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson (Acting).
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) Technical
Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to
a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP). The proposed changes are based on Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
change TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b''
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package
Accession No. ML090850642). Plant-specific deviations from TSTF-425 are
proposed to accommodate differences between the HCGS TSs and the model
TSs originally used to develop TSTF-425.
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-425 in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a
model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated March 19,
2010, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG, the licensee) provided its analysis of
the issue of NSHC based on the model NSHC determination for TSTF-425.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
Technical Specifications for which the surveillance
[[Page 33843]]
frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet
the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be
capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the
accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
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 design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, PSEG will
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained
in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP.
[The] NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed
changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177. Therefore, the proposed 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.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
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: March 25, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) associated with reactor
coolant system (RCS) structural integrity requirements for Hope Creek
Generating Station (Hope Creek) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station
(Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, the amendments would: (1)
Delete the structural integrity requirements contained in TS \3/4\.4.8
(Hope Creek), TS \3/4\.4.10 (Salem Unit 1), and TS \3/4\.4.11 (Salem
Unit 2); (2) relocate the augmented inservice inspection requirements
for the reactor coolant pump flywheel, currently contained in Salem
Unit 1 surveillance requirement (SR) 4.4.10.1.1 and Salem Unit 2 SR
4.4.11.1, to a new program in TS Section 6.8.4; and (3) delete the
augmented inservice inspection program requirements for the steam
generator channel heads currently contained in Salem Unit 1 SR
4.4.10.1.2 and Salem Unit 2 SR 4.4.11.2.
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, with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to remove the RCS Structural Integrity TS
does not impact any mitigation equipment or the ability of the RCS
pressure boundary to fulfill any required safety function. Since no
accident mitigation or initiators are impacted by this change, no
design basis accidents are affected. The removal of the RCS
Structural Integrity TS eliminates from the TS the redundancy of
requirements that are already covered by the inspections necessary
to maintain structural integrity under 10 CFR 50.55a [Section 50.55a
of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)].
Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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 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. Therefore, this proposed change
does not create the possibility of an accident of a [new or]
different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Removal of the RCS Structural Integrity TS does not reduce the
controls that are required to maintain the RCS pressure boundary for
ASME Code [American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code] Class 1, 2, or 3 components. The removal of
the RCS Structural Integrity TS eliminates from the TS the
redundancy of requirements that are already covered by the
inspections necessary to maintain structural integrity under 10 CFR
50.55a. No equipment or RCS safety margins are impacted due to the
proposed change[.]
Therefore, this 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, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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 Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 23, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem),
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program (SFCP). The proposed changes are based on
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative
5b'' (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Package
Accession No. ML090850642). Plant-
[[Page 33844]]
specific deviations from TSTF-425 are proposed to accommodate
differences between the Salem TSs and the model TSs originally used to
develop TSTF-425.
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-425 in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice included a
model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination. In its application dated March 23,
2010, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG, the licensee) provided its analysis of
the issue of NSHC based on the model NSHC determination for TSTF-425.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
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 design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, PSEG will
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained
in NRC approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04-10, Rev. 1 in
accordance with the TS SFCP. [The] NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed 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.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add
a footnote to Function 8.a in Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.2-
1, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,''
concerning the reactor trip P-4 engineered safety feature actuation
system (ESFAS) interlock. This would specify which functions of the
interlock are necessary in each mode in order to meet the limiting
condition for operation. Specifically, the functions of tripping the
main turbine and isolating main feedwater with a coincident low average
temperature would no longer be applicable in Mode 3, which is hot
standby. The amendment would also identify that the function of the P-4
interlock that allows arming of the steam dump valves and transfers the
steam dump load rejection (Tavg) controller to the plant
trip controller is not required in any mode.
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.
Overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses. Defeating the
feedwater isolation low Tavg coincident with P-4 function
will not impact any accidents previously evaluated in the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) since feedwater isolation on low
Tavg coincident with P-4 is not credited. Bypassing the
turbine trip on reactor trip function will not impact any accidents
previously evaluated in the USAR since the turbine trip on reactor
trip function of P-4 is not credited.
The instrumentation utilized to initiate transfer to the plant
trip steam dump controller does not serve a primary protective
function so as to warrant inclusion in the TS. The instrumentation
does not serve to ensure that the plant is operated within the
bounds of initial conditions assumed in design basis accident and
transient analyses. Likewise, the transfer to the plant trip steam
dump controller instrumentation does not serve as part of the
primary success path of a safety sequence analysis used to
demonstrate that the consequence of these events are within the
appropriate acceptance criteria.
The ESFAS will continue to function in a manner consistent with
the accident analysis assumptions and the plant design basis. As
such, there will be no degradation in the performance of, nor an
increase in, the number of challenges to equipment assumed to
function during an accident situation. The proposed changes to the
TSs do not affect the probability of any event initiators. There
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident
mitigation capabilities.
Therefore, this change will not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no changes in the method by which any safety related
plant system performs its safety function and the normal manner of
plant operation is unaffected, other than the proposed allowance to
defeat feedwater isolation on low Tavg coincident with P-
4 and the proposed allowance to defeat the turbine trip on reactor
trip function of P-4.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of this change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges
imposed on any safety related system as a result of this change.
Therefore,
[[Page 33845]]
the possibility of a new or different type of accident is not
created. The proposed change does not affect the steam generator
high-high level trip ESFAS function which initiates feedwater
isolation and trips the turbine and main feedwater pumps. Therefore,
this change will 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.
There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or
limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any
effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment
of protection functions. There will be no impact on departure from
nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor
(FQ(Z)) limits, nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor
(FN[Delta]H) limits, peak centerline
temperature (PCT) limits, peak local power density or any other
margin of safety.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in the 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 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, 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: May 28, 2009, as supplemented
by letter dated April 5, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to
restrict voltage limits for the applicable TS 3.8.1 surveillances
governing the Emergency Diesel Generators.
Date of issuance: May 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 255, 250.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10825). The supplement dated April 5, 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 May 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Corporation, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Corporation, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: May 18, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed changes would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF)-248, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition For Stuck
Rod Exception.'' The TSTF revises the definition of shutdown margin
(SDM) in the TSs with all control rods verified fully inserted by two
independent means. It is not necessary to account for a stuck control
rod in the SDM calculation.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 254, 249, 255, 235, 367, 369, and 368.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: Amendments revised the Operating
Licenses and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10827).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: August 17, 2009, as supplemented
by letter dated January 21, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified (1)
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and
Starting Air,'' to relocate specific numerical values for fuel oil and
lube oil storage volumes from the TS to the TS Bases, (2) TS 3.8.1,
``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' to relocate
[[Page 33846]]
specific values for the day tank fuel oil volumes from the TS to the TS
Bases, and (3) TS 5.5.9, ``Diesel Fuel Oil Testing Program,'' to
relocate the specific standard for particulate concentration testing of
fuel oil from the TS to the TS Bases.
Date of issuance:
Effective Date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 215.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 3, 2009 (74 FR
56884). The supplemental letter dated January 21, 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 as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: March 31, 2010, supplemented by
letter dated May 13, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds a new license
condition 2.C(4) to Palisades Nuclear Plant, renewed facility license
No. DPR-20. This license condition would state that performance of
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR) 3.1.4.3 is
not required for control rod drive 22 through cycle 21 or until the
next entry into Mode 3. The amendment consists of changes to TS by
addition of a note in SR 3.1.4.3, stating: ``Not required to be
performed or met for control rod 22 during cycle 21 provided control
rod 22 is administratively declared immovable, but trippable and
Condition D is entered for control rod 22.''
Date of issuance: June 2, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 15 days.
Amendment No.: 239.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and license.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): The notice provided an opportunity to submit
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments
have been received. The notice also provided an opportunity to request
a hearing by June 13, 2010, which is within 60 days of the individual
notice published on April 14; but indicated that if the Commission
makes a final NSHC determination, any such hearing would take place
after issuance of the amendment.
Date of initial Individual notice in Federal Register: April 14,
2010 (75 FR 19428), followed by the repeat biweekly notice in the
Federal Register on May 4, 2010 (75 FR 23818).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, state
consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated June 2, 2010.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: May 15, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated November 10, 2009, and May 17, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical
Specification (TS) 6.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to
minimize the number of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-
approved references consistent with the guidance provided in NRC
Generic Letter 88-16, ``Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from
Technical Specifications,'' dated October 3, 1988. This also fulfills
the commitment made in the licensee's letter to the NRC dated March 11,
2008, ``Response to Request for Additional Information License
Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 6.6.5, Core
Operating Limits Report.''
Date of issuance: May 25, 2010.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 290.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR
31321). The supplemental letters dated November 10, 2009, and May 17,
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 as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2010.
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: May 22, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated May 17, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical
Specification 6.9.1.11 to minimize the number of references that
reflect U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved methods used
in establishing the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) parameter
limits, consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 88-
16, ``Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical
Specifications,'' dated October 3, 1988.
Date of issuance: May 25, 2010.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 226.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 30, 2009 (74 FR
31322). The supplemental letter dated May 17, 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 as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 25, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: September 29, 2008, supplemented
by letters dated May 6, 2009, June 23, 2009, August 21, 2009, September
17, 2009, October 15, 2009, and November 11, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The changes revise the TMI-1
technical
[[Page 33847]]
specifications (TSs) to reflect design changes resulting from the
planned Control Rod Drive Control System digital upgrade project. In
addition, the proposed amendment revises the TS to remove all
references to the Axial Power Shaping Rods to reflect changes resulting
from their elimination from the TMI-1 reactor.
Date of issuance: May 27, 2010.
Effective Date: Immediately, and shall be implemented prior to
exiting cold shutdown from the fall 2011 (T1R19) refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 273.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised
the license and the technical specifications. The supplements dated May
6, 2009, June 23, 2009, August 21, 2009, September 17, 2009, October
15, 2009, and November 11, 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.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 10, 2009 (74 FR
10308).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412 Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2),
Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: June 11, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments will (1) modify
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 3.3.2.9, which verifies that the Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Response Times are within the limits for the
recirculation spray pumps, (2) revise Section 1.4 of the TSs to add
clarification to Notes associated with SRs in accordance with Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler, TSTF 475-A, Revision 1, ``Control
Rod Notch Testing Frequency and SRM [Source Range Monitor] Insert
Control Rod Action,'' (3) revise the BVPS-1 operating license to remove
a License Condition for recommended inspections of steam generator
repairs, and (4) make some editorial changes to the operating license
pages.
Date of issuance: May 20, 2010.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 285 and 171.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: The amendments
revised the License, TSs, Appendix B, and Appendix D.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 15, 2009 (74
FR 66385).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: May 22, 2009, as supplemented
June 22, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: Revises Technical Specification
3.1.3.4, related to requirements for Control Element Assembly drop
time.
Date of Issuance: May 31, 2010.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 158.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16: Amendment revised
the license and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2009 (74 FR
26261). The supplement dated June 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 May 31, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments: April 17, 2009, as supplemented
by letter dated January 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: Amend Renewed Operating Licenses
DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2,
respectively, to reflect a change in the legal name of the licensee
from ``FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC'' to ``NextEra Energy Point Beach,
LLC'' and correct a typographical error in Appendix C from ``FPLE Group
Capital'' to ``FPL Group Capital.''
Date of issuance: May 13, 2010.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 237, 241.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 14, 2009 (74 FR
34048) as supplemented by March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9619).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 13, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: June 24, 2009, as supplemented
by letter dated December 21, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
technical specification requirements to control room habitability in
accordance with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-448, Revision
3, ``Control Room Habitability.''
Date of issuance: May 20, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 195, 184.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (74
FR 46243). The supplemental letter contained clarifying information and
did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company et al., Docket No. 52-011, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant ESP Site, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 20, 2010, as supplemented April 23
and 28, May 5, 10, 13, and 20, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the Vogtle
Electric Plant (VEGP) ESP Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) to allow
the use of Category 1 and 2 backfill material
[[Page 33848]]
from additional onsite areas that were not specifically identified in
the VEGP ESP SSAR as backfill sources for the activities approved under
the ESP and Limited Work Authorization. After consideration of the
applicant's request by letter dated May 13, 2010, for a limited scope
approval, this amendment only approved a subset of onsite backfill
locations pending the NRC determination on the remainder of the
backfill sources identified in the license amendment request.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2010.
Effective Date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 15 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: One.
Early Site Permit No. ESP-004: Amendment revised the VEGP ESP SSAR
.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. May 6, 2010 (75 FR 24993). The supplements
dated May 5, 10, 13, and 20, 2010, 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 consideration determination. The May 6
notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's
proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received. The May 6
notice also provided an opportunity to request a hearing by July 6,
2010, but indicated that if the Commission makes a final NSHC
determination, any such hearing would take place after issuance of the
amendment.
The Commission's related evaluation of the requested limited scope
approval of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state
consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a safety
evaluation dated May 21, 2010. The NRC staff prepared an environmental
assessment (75 FR 28664) and determined that the requested limited
scope approval of the amendment will not have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham, LLP.
NRC Branch Chief: Jeffrey Cruz.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: May 4, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIVs),'' to
add the main steam isolation valve bypass valves and main steam low
point drain isolation valves to the scope of this TS and modify the
title and page header of TS 3.7.2; revised footnotes (i) and (k) in TS
Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
Instrumentation,'' of TS 3.3.2 to make the Applicability of TS Table
3.3.2-1 consistent with the Applicability of TS 3.7.2 and deleted
footnote (l) which is no longer used in the Table; and added new TS
3.7.19, ``Secondary System Isolation Valves (SSIVs),'' Limiting
Condition for Operation 3.7.19, and Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
3.7.19.1 and 3.7.19.2 for the following secondary system isolation
valves: steam generator chemical injection isolation valves, steam
generator blowdown isolation valves, and steam generator sample line
isolation valves. Correspondingly, the amendment added new Function 10,
``Steam Generator Blowdown System and Sample Line Isolation Valve
Actuation,'' and new exception footnote (t) for Function 10 in TS Table
3.3.2-1.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 197.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (74 FR
42933).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2010.
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: December 16, 2009.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)-approved Revision 2 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-427, ``Allowance
for Non Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Support System
Operability.'' The proposed amendment will modify the requirements for
unavailable barriers by adding a Limiting Condition for Operation
3.0.9.
Date of issuance: May 4, 2010.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 240.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
change the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 26, 2010.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 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 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
[[Page 33849]]
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\ 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
[[Page 33850]]
authority to act for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that
contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery 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.
[[Page 33851]]
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated June 1, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendment modified Technical
Specification (TS) 2.15, ``Instrumentation and Controls,'' Table 2-5,
Note c to allow a one-time extension of the 7-day allowed outage time
for inoperability of Item 4, ``Safety Valve Acoustic Position
Indication,'' to allow repair prior to the next entry into Operating
Mode 3 (Hot Shutdown) from Operating Mode 4 (Cold Shutdown).
Date of issuance: June 2, 2010.
Effective Date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
upon issuance.
Amendment No.: 265.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated June 2, 2010.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-14063 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P