[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64359-64366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26152]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0327]
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 September 23, 2010 to October 6, 2010. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 5, 2010, (75 FR 61521).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
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
[[Page 64360]]
date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern 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
[[Page 64361]]
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].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: August 27, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
methodology in the feedwater line break with loss of offsite power and
single failure event (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis summarized in the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
The revision would change the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes to control the pressurizer level.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes does not change the probability of a FWLB/
LOP/SF event as the operator actions are credited after the start of
the event.
This change in operator action time does not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors, the ability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended functions
to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the
assumed acceptance limits, or radiological release assumptions used
in evaluating the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes does not involve any design or physical
changes to the facility or any SSC of that facility. The proposed
change does not create any new failure modes or adversely affect the
interaction between any structure, system or component.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes does not alter the manner in which safety
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes
to instrument/system actuation setpoints are involved. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by this change and the
proposed change will not permit plant operation in a configuration
outside the design basis. The assumed 20 minutes for operator action
is consistent with Industry and NRC guidance.
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
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 5, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.1 Fuel Storage--Criticality, to
include new spent fuel storage patterns that account for both the
increase in fuel maximum enrichment from 4.5 weight
[[Page 64362]]
percentage (wt%) U-235 to 5.0 wt% U-235 and the impact on the fuel of
higher power operation proposed under the Extended Power Uprate (EPU)
project. Although the fuel storage has been analyzed at the higher fuel
enrichment in the new criticality analysis, the fuel enrichment limit
of 4.5 wt% U-235 specified in TS 5.5.1 will not be changed under this
license amendment request. The proposed TS changes and a new supporting
criticality analysis are being submitted to revise the current
licensing basis analysis for both new fuel and spent fuel pool storage.
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?
No. The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel,
fuel handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel
assemblies that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay
heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup
system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the
following previously evaluated events and accidents:
a. A fuel handling accident (FHA),
b. A cask drop accident,
c. A fuel mispositioning event,
d. A spent fuel pool boron dilution event,
e. A seismic event, and
f. A loss of spent fuel pool cooling event.
Although the proposed amendment will require increased handling
of the fuel, the probability of a FHA is not significantly increased
because the implementation of the proposed amendment will employ the
same equipment and process to handle fuel assemblies that is
currently used. Also, tests have confirmed that the Metamic inserts
can be installed and removed without damaging the host fuel
assemblies. The FHA radiological dose consequences associated with
fuel enrichment at this level were addressed in LAR [license
amendment request] 196 on Alternative Source Term implementation at
EPU conditions and remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed
amendments do not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of a FHA.
The proposed amendments do not increase the probability of
dropping a fuel transfer cask because they do not introduce any new
heavy loads to the SFP and do not affect heavy load handling
processes. Also, the insertion of Metamic rack inserts does not
increase the consequences of the cask drop accident because the
radiological source term of that accident is developed from a non-
mechanistically derived quantity of damaged fuel stored in the spent
fuel pool. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of a cask drop accident.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel mispositioning event because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling
procedures. These procedures continue to require identification of
the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly that is
moved. The consequences of a fuel mispositioning event are not
changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same
subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for the
worst-case fuel mispositioning event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a boron dilution event because the systems
and events that could affect spent fuel pool soluble boron are
unchanged. The consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged
because the proposed amendment reduces the soluble boron requirement
below the currently required value and the maximum possible water
volume displaced by the inserts is an insignificant fraction of the
total spent fuel pool water volume.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a seismic event. The consequences of a
seismic event are not significantly increased because the forcing
functions for seismic excitation are not increased and because the
mass of storage racks with Metamic inserts is not appreciably
increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate adequate stress levels in
the storage racks when inserts are installed.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the
systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The
consequences are not significantly increased because there are no
changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures or
components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the
current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the
Metamic inserts installed.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
No. The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel,
fuel handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that
may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent
fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The effects of operating with
the proposed amendment are listed below. The proposed amendments
were evaluated for the potential of each effect to create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident:
a. Addition of inserts to the fuel storage racks,
b. New storage patterns,
c. Additional weight from the inserts,
d. Insert movement above fuel, and
e. Displacement of fuel pool water by the inserts.
Each insert will be placed between a fuel assembly and the
storage cell wall, taking up some of the space available on two
sides of the fuel assembly. Tests confirm that the insert can be
installed and removed without damaging the fuel assembly. Analyses
demonstrate that the presence of the inserts does not adversely
affect spent fuel cooling, seismic capability, or subcriticality.
The aluminum (alloy 6061) and boron carbide materials of
construction have been shown to be compatible with nuclear fuel,
storage racks and spent fuel pool environments, and generate no
adverse material interactions. Therefore, placing the inserts into
the spent fuel pool storage racks cannot cause a new or different
kind of accident.
Operation with the proposed fuel storage patterns will not
create a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement
will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures.
These procedures continue to require identification of the initial
and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are
no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage patterns meet these
requirements and criteria with adequate margins. Therefore, the
proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new or different kind of
accident.
Operation with the added weight of the Metamic inserts will not
create a new or different accident. The net effect of the adding the
maximum number of inserts is to add less than one percent to the
weight of the loaded racks. Furthermore, the analyses of the racks
with Metamic inserts installed demonstrate that the stress levels in
the rack modules continue to be considerably less than allowable
stress limits. Therefore, the added weight from the inserts cannot
cause a new or different kind of accident.
Operation with insert movement above stored fuel will not create
a new or different kind of accident. The insert with its handling
tool weighs considerably less than the weight of a single fuel
assembly. Single fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely over
fuel assemblies and the same level of safety in design and operation
will be maintained when moving the inserts. Furthermore, the effect
of a dropped insert to block the top of a storage cell has been
evaluated in thermal-hydraulic analyses. Therefore, the movement of
inserts cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
Whereas the installed rack inserts will displace a very small
fraction of the fuel pool water volume and impose a very small
reduction in operator response time to previously-evaluated SFP
accidents, the reduction will not promote a new or different kind of
accident. Also, displacement of water along two sides of a stored
fuel assembly may have some local reduction in the peripheral
cooling flow; however, this effect would be small compared to the
flow induced through the fuel assembly and would in no way promote a
new or different kind of accident.
The accidents and events previously analyzed and presented in
the Boraflex Remedy and Alternative Source Term LARs remain
bounding. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 64363]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
No. The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety as they relate to criticality, structural
integrity, and spent fuel heat removal capability.
The margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR
50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New criticality analysis confirms that
operation in accordance with the proposed amendment continues to
meet the required subcriticality margins.
The structural evaluations for the racks and spent fuel pool
with Metamic inserts installed show that the rack and spent fuel
pool are unimpaired by loading combinations during seismic motion,
and there is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack
and Metamic inserts.
The proposed change does not affect spent fuel heat generation
or the spent fuel pool cooling systems. A conservative analysis
indicates that the design basis requirements and criteria for spent
fuel cooling continue to be met with the Metamic inserts in place,
and displacing coolant. Thermal hydraulic analysis of the local
effects of an installed rack insert blocking peripheral flow show a
small increase in local water and fuel clad temperatures, but will
remain within acceptable limits including no departure from nucleate
boiling.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above discussion, FPL has determined that the
proposed change does not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 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].
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: September 28, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated June 24 and September 3 and 24, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Required
Action A.1 of Technical Specification 3.8.7, ``Inverters--Operating,''
for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, by
extending the Completion Time for restoration of an inoperable vital
alternating current inverter from 24 hours to 7 days.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--180; Unit 2--180; Unit 3--180.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR
62833). The supplemental letters dated June 24 and September 3 and 24,
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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-414, Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: April 28, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated September 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to exclude portions of the Steam Generator
(SG) tube from periodic SG tube inspections and plugging or repair. In
addition, reporting requirement changes were made to TS 5.6.8.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to requiring the SGs to be operable at the completion of the End
of Cycle 17 Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.: 257.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52: Amendment revised
the license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR
39977). The supplement dated September 9, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 64364]]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: April 21, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated July 28 and September 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised James A.
FitzPatrick Technical Specification (TS) 2.0, ``Safety Limits (SLs).''
Specifically, TS 2.1.1.2 replaced 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.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 299.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR
33841).
The supplements dated July 28 and September 2, 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 as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generating Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: October 30, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated April 16, 2010, and August 31, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Oyster
Creek Technical Specifications to relocate a number of Surveillance
Requirement frequencies to a licensee-controlled document.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 276.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (74
FR 68869). The supplements dated April 16, 2010, and August 31, 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
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-
277, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: May 27, 2010, as supplemented
on July 15, 2010, and August 25, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment modifies the PBAPS
Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.1.1.2 to reflect revised
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values for operating
cycle 19. The SLMCPR analysis establishes SLMCPR values that will
ensure that during normal operation and during abnormal operational
transients, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience transition boiling if the limit is not violated.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-44: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2010 (75 FR
43574).
The supplements dated July 15, 2010, and August 25, 2010, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: June 14, 2010, as supplemented
on August 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
licensing basis, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report
Update, to include damping values for the seismic design and analysis
of the integrated head assembly (IHA) that are consistent with the
recommendations of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.61, ``Damping Values for
Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1. In addition, the
RG 1.61, Revision 1, Table 1 note allowing the use of a ``weighted
average'' for design-basis safe-shutdown earthquake damping values
applicable to steel structures of different connection types will also
be applied to determine the IHA design-basis operating-basis earthquake
damping values.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--208; Unit 2--210.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR
44025). The supplemental letter dated August 9, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: December 1, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated July 23, and August 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Revise the required frequency of testing
control rod scram times from ``at least once per 120 days of POWER
OPERATION'' to ``at
[[Page 64365]]
least once per 200 days of POWER OPERATION''; (2) revise the evaluation
methodology for control rod scram time tests; (3) establish a new
category of operable but ``slow'' control rods; and (4) establish
allowable limits for the number and distribution of ``slow'' rods. The
changes are based, in part, on Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved
TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-460, ``Control Rod Scram Time
Testing Frequency.''
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 183.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (75 FR
4119).
The letters dated July 23, and August 19, 2010, provided clarifying
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond
the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of application for amendment: November 30, 2009, as
supplemented by letter dated May 14, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment provides
authorization to upgrade selected Emergency Action Levels based on
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, ``Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels,'' Revision 5, dated February 2008 using the
guidance of NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18, Supplement 2, ``Use
of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels.''
Date of issuance: October 6, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 111.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (75 FR
6411).
The letter dated May 14, 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 October 6, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: February 17, 2009, as
supplemented on June 15, December 1, and December 23, 2009, January 14,
and July 16, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the technical
specification changes and design-basis accident radiological
consequence analyses to support implementation of alternative source
term methodology, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.67, ``Accident source term,'' using
the guidance described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative
Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design-basis Accidents at
Nuclear Power Reactors.''
Date of issuance: October 4, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 183.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR
12395).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: January 27, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February 4 and April 29, 2010.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments would increase
each unit's rated power (RP) level from 2546 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
2587 MWt, and make Technical Specifications changes as necessary to
support operation at the uprated power level. The proposed change is an
increase in RP of approximately 1.6 percent.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 268.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR
17447).
The supplements provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand in 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 September 24, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2009 as supplemented by
letter dated June 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the licensing
basis for the approved fire protection program as described in the Wolf
Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)
to allow use of the fire-resistive cable for certain power and control
cables associated with two motor-operated valves on Train B Component
Cooling Water System. This is a deviation from certain technical
commitments to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as described in Appendix 9.5E of
the WCGS USAR.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 189.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10831). The supplemental letter dated June 2, 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
[[Page 64366]]
Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, October 7, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-26152 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P