[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21917-21928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9177]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0082]
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 March 24, 2011, to April 6, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 5, 2011 (76 FR 18801).
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.
[[Page 21918]]
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, 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, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
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, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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, then 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
[[Page 21919]]
(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 identification (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 the Electronic Information Exchange System,
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 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. 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].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland
Date of amendments request: October 25, 2010.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.5 to
provide clarification as to when the LCO can be invoked in order to
perform required testing to demonstrate OPERABILITY of equipment.
[[Page 21920]]
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 to LCO 3.0.5 more clearly specifies the
situations when LCO 3.0.5 can be applied. In some Technical
Specifications, the steps taken to comply with ACTIONS involve the
placement of redundant or alternate equipment or trains into
service, or the repositioning (e.g., opening or closing) or
components. The proposed change would allow the use of LCO 3.0.5 in
situations such as these. This proposed change does not, however,
change the intent of LCO 3.0.5. The purpose of LCO 3.0.5 remains to
provide an exception to LCO 3.0.2, to not comply with the applicable
Required Action(s) while performing required testing to demonstrate
the OPERABILITY of either equipment being returned to service or the
OPERABILITY of other equipment.
The proposed change does not affect any analyzed accident
initiators, nor does it change the units' ability to successfully
respond to any previously evaluated accident. As a result, there is
also no change to existing radiological assumptions used in the
accident evaluations. In addition this proposed change does not
change the operation or maintenance performed on operating
equipment.
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 to LCO 3.0.5 more clearly specifies the
situations when LCO 3.0.5 can be applied. In some Technical
Specifications, the steps taken to comply with ACTIONS involve the
placement of redundant or alternate equipment or trains into
service, or the repositioning (e.g., opening or closing) or
components. The proposed change would allow the use of LCO 3.0.5 in
situations such as these. This proposed change does not, however,
change the intent of LCO 3.0.5. The purpose of LCO 3.0.5 remains to
provide an exception to LCO 3.0.2, to not comply with the applicable
Required Action(s) while performing required testing to demonstrate
the OPERABILITY of either equipment being returned to service or the
OPERABILITY of other equipment.
The proposed change does not involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the units nor does it involve any change
in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change
does not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new
accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
Additionally there is no change in the types or increase in the
amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite and there is no
increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.
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 to LCO 3.0.5 more clearly specifies the
situations when LCO 3.0.5 can be applied. In some Technical
Specifications, the steps taken to comply with ACTIONS involve the
placement of redundant or alternate equipment or trains into
service, or the repositioning (e.g., opening or closing) or
components. The proposed change would allow the use of LCO 3.0.5 in
situations such as these. This proposed change does not, however,
change the intent of LCO 3.0.5. The purpose of LCO 3.0.5 remains to
provide an exception to LCO 3.0.2, to not comply with the applicable
Required Action(s) while performing required testing to demonstrate
the OPERABILITY of either equipment being returned to service or the
OPERABILITY of other equipment.
The proposed change does not involve any modification to the
physical configuration of the operating units and does not alter
equipment operation. As such, the safety functions of plant
equipment and their response to any analyzed accident scenario are
unaffected by this proposed change and thus there is no reduction in
the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety for the operation of each unit.
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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street,
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland
Date of amendments request: March 22, 2011.
Description of amendments request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit
for restoring inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status. The proposed TS changes are
consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)-513, ``Revise PWR [pressurized-
water reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage
is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The plant specific variation
to this license amendment request, to insert the Note ``Not required
until 12 hours after establishment of steady state operation'' into
applicable portions of the Technical Specification is administrative
in nature. As a result, its inclusion does not impact any plant
equipment's ability to perform its required functions. Therefore, it
is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the
probability of piping evaluated and approved for leak-before-break
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low. The plant
specific variation to this license amendment request, to insert the
Note ``Not required until 12 hours after establishment of steady
state operation'' into applicable portions of the Technical
Specification also does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant or change in how plant equipment is operated. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
[[Page 21921]]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be
detected before it potentially results in gross failure. The plant
specific variation to this license amendment request, to insert the
Note ``Not required until 12 hours after establishment of steady
state operation'' into applicable portions of the Technical
Specification provides clarification as it reflects the time
necessary for plant conditions to stabilize in order to ensure an
accurate water inventory can be obtained.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff
has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Carey Fleming, Sr. Counsel--Nuclear
Generation, Constellation Generation Group, LLC, 750 East Pratt Street,
17th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications (TS) description of fuel assemblies
specified in TS 4.2.1. Additionally, changes are requested to the
analytical methods referenced in TS 5.6.5.b. The changes to TS 5.6.5.b
includes the addition of AREVA topical reports, BAW-10240(P)(A),
``Incorporation of M5\TM\ Properties in Framatome ANP Approved
Methods,'' and EMF-2328(P)(A), ``PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model
S-RELAP5 Based,'' and the deletion of nine analytical methods that were
previously approved but are no longer planned to be used, and therefore
have not been analyzed for acceptability for M5\TM\ (M5) alloy fuel.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed license amendment adds a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved analytical method, BAW-10240(P)(A),
``Incorporation of M5\TM\ Properties in Framatome ANP Approved
Methods,'' used to determine the core operating limits, to Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b and changes the description of fuel
assemblies specified in TS 4.2.1 to allow use of the M5 alloy. The
proposed amendment does not affect the acceptance criteria for any
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) safety analysis analyzed
accidents or anticipated operational occurrences. The proposed
amendment does not involve operation of the required structures,
systems or components (SSCs) in a manner different from those
previously recognized or evaluated. As such, the proposed amendment
does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident.
In addition, the proposed license amendment adds NRC approved
methodology EMF-2328(P)(A), ``PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model,
S-RELAP5 Based.'' This change, by itself, does not impact the
current design bases. The proposed change enables the use of new
methodologies to re-analyze small break loss-of-coolant accidents.
Revised analyses may either result in continued conformance within
design bases, or may change the design bases. If design bases
changes result from a revised analysis, then the specific design
changes will be evaluated in accordance with HBRSEP, Unit 2, design
change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. Further, this part of the change
does not involve physical changes to any plant structure, system, or
component.
In addition, the proposed license amendment deletes nine
analytical methods that were previously approved and listed in
Section 5.6.5.b, but are no longer planned to be used. This change
is administrative in nature as it removes methodologies that have
become obsolete and hence have not been analyzed for acceptability
with M5 fuel.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
Use of M5 fuel will not result in changes in the operation or
configuration of the facility. Topical reports BAW-10227(P)(A) and
BAW-10240(P)(A) evaluate the material properties of the M5 alloy and
conclude that they are similar or better than those of zircaloy-4.
Therefore, M5 fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to those
fabricated from zircaloy-4, thus precluding the possibility of the
fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a new or different
type of accident. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by
the changes being requested.
The proposed addition of EMF-2328(P)(A) does not involve any
physical alteration of plant systems, structures, or components,
other than allowing for fuel design in accordance with NRC-approved
methodologies. No new or different equipment is being installed. No
installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. There
is no change to the parameters within which the plant is normally
operated or in the setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative
actions. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced by
introduction of this methodology.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction
in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the M5 alloy are not significantly different
from those of zircaloy-4. M5 alloy is expected to perform similarly
or better than zircaloy-4 for all normal operating and accident
scenarios, including both loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and non-
LOCA scenarios. The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance
criteria for any FSAR safety analysis analyzed accidents or
anticipated operational occurrences. All required safety limits
would continue to be analyzed using methodologies approved by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
There is no impact on any margin of safety resulting from the
incorporation of these new topical reports into the Technical
Specifications. If design basis changes result from a revised
analysis that uses these new methodologies, the specific design
changes will be evaluated in accordance with HBRSEP, Unit 2, design
change procedures and 10 CFR 50.59. Any potential reduction in the
margin of safety would be evaluated for that specific design change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
[[Page 21922]]
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 13, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specifications (TSs) to change the description of fuel
assemblies specified in TS 5.3.1 and add the AREVA NP Inc., topical
report, BAW-10240(P)(A), ``Incorporation of M5\TM\ Properties in
Framatome ANP Approved Methods,'' to the referenced analytical methods
in administrative TS 6.9.1.6.2 to allow the use of M5\TM\ alloy for
fuel rod cladding.
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 license amendment adds a NRC approved analytical
method, BAW-10240(P)(A), ``Incorporation of M5\TM\ Properties in
Framatome ANP Approved Methods,'' used to determine the core
operating limits, to TS 6.9.1.6.2 and changes the description of
fuel assemblies specified in TS 5.3.1 to allow use of the M5\TM\
alloy. The proposed amendment does not affect the acceptance
criteria for any Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) safety analysis
analyzed accidents and anticipated operational occurrences. As such,
the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident. The proposed amendment does not involve
operation of the required structures, systems or components (SSCs)
in a manner or configuration different from those previously
recognized or evaluated. Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would 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.
Use of M5\TM\ clad fuel will not result in changes in the
operation or configuration of the facility. Topical Report BAW-10240
describes, by reference, that the material properties of the M5\TM\
alloy are similar to or better than those of Zircaloy-4. Therefore,
since M5\TM\ fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to those
fabricated from Zircaloy-4, the possibility of the fuel becoming an
accident initiator and causing a new or different type of accident
is precluded. Since the material properties of M5\TM\ alloy are
similar to or better than those of Zircaloy-4, there will be no
significant changes in the types of any effluents that may be
released off-site. There will not be a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. The proposed amendment
does not involve operation of any required SSCs in a manner or
configuration different from those previously recognized or
evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the
changes being requested. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the M5\TM\ alloy are not significantly
different from those of Zircaloy-4. M5\TM\ alloy is expected to
perform similarly to or better than Zircaloy-4 for all normal
operating and accident scenarios, including both loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. The proposed changes do not
affect the acceptance criteria for any FSAR safety analysis analyzed
accidents or anticipated operational occurrences. All required
safety limits will continue to be analyzed using methodologies
approved by the NRC. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 20, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Technical Specifications (TS)
Section 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,'' and Section 3.8.5,
``DC Sources--Shutdown.'' The proposed change to TS 3.8.3 revises a
nonconservative air receiver tank pressure to a value consistent with
vendor recommendations. The proposed change to TS 3.8.5 corrects an
editorial error related to TS formatting.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change to TS 3.8.3 revises a non-conservative value
in the current TS for EDG air start pressure. The proposed value is
consistent with vendor recommendations and will ensure that the
intent of the TS requirement is met. Therefore, the proposed change
will provide improved assurance that the EDGs will be able to meet
their safety function.
The proposed change to TS 3.8.5 is an editorial correction and
there will be no actual changes to plant design or operation.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
As described above, the proposed change to TS 3.8.3 provides
improved assurance that the EDGs will be able to meet their safety
function. No new failure modes are introduced. Therefore, no new
accident initiators or precursors are introduced by the proposed
change.
The proposed change to TS 3.8.5 is an editorial correction and
there will be no actual changes to plant design or operation.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction
in the Margin of Safety.
As described above, the proposed change to TS 3.8.3 provides
improved assurance that the EDGs will be able to meet their safety
function of mitigating events that involve a loss of offsite power.
Therefore, the proposed change will preserve any margin of safety.
The proposed change to TS 3.8.5 is an editorial correction and
there will be no actual changes to plant design or operation.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would 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: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy
[[Page 21923]]
Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina
27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: February 7, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to amend
the MNGP Technical Specifications (TS), revising Surveillance
Requirement 3.5.1.7 regarding the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)
core spray flow from a minimum of 2800 gpm to a minimum of 2835 gpm.
The licensee considers the current minimum flow rate requirement as
non-conservative.
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 (NSHC) analysis. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's
NSHC analysis and has prepared its own as follows:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The purpose of the minimum core spray flow rate requirement is
to ensure that the ECCS will perform as designed. Of the postulated
accidents and transients previously analyzed in the MNGP Updated
Safety Analysis Report, none of them were postulated to be initiated
by the ECCS performing as designed.
Furthermore, the consequences of the previously analyzed
accidents were not postulated to be exacerbated by the ECCS
performing as designed. Accordingly, the probability of occurrence
and the consequences of the previously analyzed accidents would not
be affected in any way by the proposed amendment to the TS.
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 amendment does not involve any physical alteration
of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) nor does it change methods and procedures governing plant
operation. The proposed amendment will not impose any new or
eliminate any old requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment will not have any effect on previously
used safety analysis methods, scenarios, acceptance criteria, or
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
its own analysis, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for the licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General
Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN
55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-281, Surry Power
Station, Unit 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2010.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request proposes
to revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.4.Q, ``Steam Generator (SG)
Program,'' to exclude portions of the SG tube below the top of the SG
tubesheet from periodic tube inspections for Unit 2 during Refueling
Outage 23 and the subsequent operating cycle. This amendment request
also proposes to revise TS 6.6.A.3, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection
Report,'' to provide reporting requirements specific to Unit 2 for the
temporary alternate repair criteria.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure
of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change
that alters the steam generator inspection/repair criteria and the
steam generator inspection reporting criteria does not have a
detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system,
or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed change
will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure
probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed
accident.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam
generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event and the steam line break (SLB)
postulated accidents.
During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins
of the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over
the H* distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with
cracks within the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided
by the tube-to-tubesheet joint. This constraint results from the
hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the
tube and tubesheet, and from the differential pressure between the
primary and secondary side. Based on this design, the structural
margins against burst, as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121,
``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Steam
Generator Tubes,'' are maintained for both normal and postulated
accident conditions.
The proposed change has no impact on the structural or leakage
integrity of the portion of the tube outside of the tubesheet. The
proposed change maintains structural integrity of the steam
generator tubes and does not affect other systems, structures,
components, or operational features. Therefore, the proposed change
results in no significant increase in the probability of the
occurrence of a SGTR accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress
corrosion cracking below the proposed limited inspection depth is
limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack
opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently,
negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within
the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are affected
by the primary to secondary leakage flow during the event. However,
primary to secondary leakage flow through a postulated broken tube
is not affected by the proposed changes since the tubesheet enhances
the tube integrity in the region of the hydraulic expansion by
precluding tube deformation beyond its initial hydraulically
expanded outside diameter. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
result in a significant increase in the consequences of a SGTR.
The consequences of a steam line break (SLB) are also not
significantly affected by the proposed changes. During a SLB
accident, the reduction in pressure above the tubesheet on the shell
side of the steam generator creates an axially uniformly distributed
load on the tubesheet due to the reactor coolant system pressure on
the underside of the tubesheet. The resulting bending action
constrains the tubes in the tubesheet thereby restricting primary to
secondary leakage below the midplane.
Primary to secondary leakage from tube degradation in the
tubesheet area during the limiting accident (i.e., a SLB) is limited
by flow restrictions. These restrictions result from the crack and
tube-to-tubesheet contact pressures that provide a restricted
leakage path above the indications and also limit the degree of
potential crack face opening as compared to free span indications.
The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure
of a steam generator tube as the failure of the tube is not an
initiator for a SLB event.
The leakage factor of 2.03 is a bounding value for all SGs, both
hot and cold legs, in
[[Page 21924]]
Table 9-7 of WCAP-17092-P. Also as shown in Table 9-7 of WCAP-17092-
P, for Surry for a postulated SLB, a leakage factor of 1.80 has been
calculated. However, for Surry, a more conservative leakage factor
of 2.03 will be applied to the normal operating leakage associated
with the tubesheet expansion region in the condition monitoring (CM)
assessment and the operational assessment (OA). Specifically, for
the CM assessment, the component of leakage from the prior cycle
from below the H* distance will be multiplied by a factor of 2.03
and added to the total leakage from any other source and compared to
the allowable accident induced leakage limit. For the OA, the
difference in the leakage between the allowable leakage and the
accident induced leakage from sources other than the tubesheet
expansion region will be divided by 2.03 and compared to the
observed operational leakage.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection/
repair criteria and the steam generator inspection reporting
criteria does not introduce any new equipment, create new failure
modes for existing equipment, or create any new limiting single
failures. Plant operation will not be altered, and all safety
functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident
analyses.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change that alters the steam generator inspection/
repair criteria and the steam generator inspection reporting
criteria maintains the required structural margins of the steam
generator tubes for both normal and accident conditions. NEI
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 97-06, Revision 2, ``Steam Generator
Program Guidelines,'' and RG 1.121 are used as the bases in the
development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology
for determining that steam generator tube integrity considerations
are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method
acceptable to the NRC for meeting GDC [General Design Criteria] 14,
``Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor Coolant
System Design,'' GDC 31, ``Fracture Prevention of Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary,'' and GDC 32, ``Inspection of Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary,'' by reducing the probability and consequences of
a SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe
conditions for tube wall degradation the probability and
consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on
loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of
Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking, the H* analysis, documented in
Section 4 of the license amendment request, defines a length of
degradation free expanded tubing that provides the necessary
resistance to tube pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with
applicable safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot
and cold leg tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary to secondary leakage during all plant
conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for
large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the
proposed limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-449, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated March 1, 2011.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would revise Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.3.I, ``Containment Post-
Tensioning System Surveillance Program.'' TS 6.8.3.I states that the
containment post-tensioning system surveillance program shall be in
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code,
Section XI, Subsection IWL, 1992 Edition with 1992 Addenda, as
supplemented by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii).
The proposed amendment removes the specific year of the applicable
Code edition consistent with Revision 3.1 of NUREG-1431, ``Standard
Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants'' and will allow for
future updates to the surveillance program when the applicable code
edition changes without requiring additional TS changes.
Date of publication of individual notice in the Federal Register:
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16012).
Expiration date of individual notice: April 21, 2011 (public
comments); May 23, 2011 (hearing requests).
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
[[Page 21925]]
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, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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: March 31, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated November 30, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to relocate specific surveillance frequencies
to a licensee-controlled program using a risk-informed justification.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 263, 259.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: November 16, 2010
(75 FR 70034). The supplement dated November 30, 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 March 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: March 24, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated November 18, 2010, and March 2, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to relocate specific surveillance frequencies
to a licensee-controlled program using a risk-informed justification.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 261, 241.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: November 16, 2010
(75 FR 70035).
The supplements dated November 18, 2010, and March 2, 2011,
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 March 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of application for amendment: March 15, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated August 30, 2010, September 21, 2010, January 31, 2011,
and February 18, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment request would modify
the Technical Specifications to revise the setpoint and setpoint
tolerances for safety relief valves (SRVs) and spring safety valves
(SSVs) and support the plant modifications associated with the
replacement of (1) four Target Rock two-stage SRVs with three-stage
SRVs, and (2) two existing Dresser 3.749 inch throat diameter SSVs with
Dresser 4.956 inch throat diameter SSVs.
Date of issuance: March 28, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 235.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (75 FR
23812).
The supplemental letters dated August 30, 2010, September 21, 2010,
January 31, 2011, and February 18, 2011, 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 this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: August 31, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments involve
administrative changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs). The
changes involve: (1) Making an editorial change to Limerick Generating
Station (LGS) Unit 1 TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.3.1,
Action b; (2) making an editorial change to LGS Units 1 and 2 TS Table
3.3.1-1, Actions 2 and 9; (3) making the layout and format of LGS Unit
1 TS LCO 3.6.5.3 Action requirements consistent with the LGS Unit 2 LCO
Action requirements for the same TS; and (4) adding a reference to the
minimum required number of operable main turbine bypass valves and the
turbine bypass system response time to the core operating limits
documented in the Core Operating Limits Report as specified in LGS,
Units 1 and 2, TS 6.9.1.9.
Date of issuance: March 31, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 200 and 161.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. The amendments
revised the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: November 2, 2010
(75 FR 67402).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: December 15, 2010, as
supplemented on February 17, 2011, and March 17, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The changes revise the Technical
Specification (TS) relating to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power
Ratios (SLMCPRs). The changes result from a cycle specific analysis
performed to support the operation of Limerick
[[Page 21926]]
Generating Station, Unit 2, in the upcoming Cycle 12. Specifically, the
TS changes will revise the SLMCPRs contained in TS 2.1 for two
recirculation loop operation and single recirculation loop operation to
reflect the changes in the cycle specific analysis. The new SLMCPRs are
calculated using Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved methodology
described in NEDE 24011-P-A, General Electric Standard Application for
Reactor Fuel, Revision 17.
Date of issuance: April 5, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 162.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-85. The amendment revised the
license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: February 1, 2011
(76 FR 5620). The supplements dated February 17, 2011, and March 17,
2011, clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the initial
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (IandM), Docket No. 50-316, Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: March 19, 2009, as supplemented
on November 20, 2009, February 24, March 11, and March 25, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts a new analysis
of a large-break loss-of-coolant accident, and revises the Technical
Specifications to reflect this new analysis, which was performed using
a plant-specific adaptation of the NRC-approved methodology set forth
in Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-16009-P-A, ``Realistic Large-Break
LOCA Evaluation Methodology Using the Automated Statistical Treatment
of Uncertainty Method (ASTRUM).''
Date of issuance: March 31, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 297.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revised the
Renewed Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (74
FR 40238).
The supplemental information contained clarifying information, did
not change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change
the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards
consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the
original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: December 1, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
inspection scope and repair requirements in Technical Specification
(TS) 5.5.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam Generator (SG)
Program,'' to exclude portions of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant
(CPNPP), Unit 2, Model D5 SG tubes below the top of the SG tubesheet
from periodic SG tube inspections. In addition, the amendments revised
TS 5.6.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Reports,'' to provide reporting requirements specific to
CPNPP, Unit 2, for the temporary alternate repair criteria. The changes
are applicable only to CPNPP, Unit 2, during Refueling Outage 12 and
the subsequent operating cycle.
Date of issuance: April 6, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to Mode 4 entry during startup from Unit 2 Refueling Outage 12.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--154; Unit 2--154.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: February 1, 2011
(76 FR 5622).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2011. 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 7, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated June 17 (two letters), September 11, September 25,
October 9, November 20 (two letters), November 21 (two letters),
November 30, December 8, and December 16 of 2009; and January 7,
January 8, January 22, February 11, February 25, March 3, April 15,
April 22, April 28, July 8, July 28, August 2, August 9, August 24,
October 15, November 1, November 12 (two letters), November 30, and
December 21 of 2010. The proposed changes were originally included as
part of the April 7, 2009, extended power uprate (EPU) license
amendment request, but subsequently divided into a separate licensing
action for independent technical review.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment changes the AFW
system design and Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary
Feedwater (AFW),'' and TS 3.7.6, ``Condensate Storage Tank (CST),''
resulting from (1) modifications to the AFW system to support
requirements for transients and other accidents at EPU conditions; (2)
installation of main feedwater isolation valves to support accident
mitigation by ensuring that containment pressure does not exceed safety
analysis limits; (3) automatic AFW switchover from a CST suction source
to a safety-related Service Water source; and (4) instrumentation
setpoint changes supporting the aforementioned physical modifications.
The upgrades and modifications to the AFW system are being installed to
provide additional capacity and reliability for the system. Although
the proposed changes are also designed to support the requirements for
transients and other accidents at EPU conditions, the changes for this
amendment have been evaluated using the current licensing basis.
Date of issuance: March 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: 238, 242.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revise the License, Appendix C, and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: September 21, 2010
(75 FR 57525).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the staff's initial proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration.
[[Page 21927]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 25, 2011. 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 7, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated June 17, September 11, September 25, November 20,
November 30, and December 8 of 2009; February 11, February 25, April
22, April 30, July 21, July 28, August 2, and September 28 of 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment changed the
Technical Specifications to support (1) modifications to the AFW
system; (2) an EPU to increase plant core thermal power from 1,540
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1,800 MWt; and (3) update non-conservative
RPS and ESFAS setpoints not associated with the EPU. The amendment also
modified the RPS instrumentation setpoints of TS Table 3.3.1-1 and the
ESFAS instrumentation setpoints of TS Table 3.3.2-1. The changes
include both EPU and non-EPU related setpoints. The revised TS
allowable values have been calculated to account for new analytical
limits, instrument uncertainties, and instrument drift. The changes
also include the addition of a new column entitled Nominal Trip
Setpoint that was added to provide consistency with the TS Table format
in NUREG 1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse
Plants,'' and Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-493, Revision
4, ``Clarify the Application of Setpoint Methodology for Limiting
Safety System Setting (LSSS) Functions.'' The RPS and ESFAS
instrumentation uncertainty/setpoint calculations have also been
revised to eliminate the use of a single-sided reduction factor in the
total loop error determination for LSSS setpoints.
Date of issuance: March 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to Unit 1 startup from the Fall 2011 refueling outage
(Unit 1) and within 180 days (Unit 2).
Amendment Nos.: 239 and 243.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications/License.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: September 21, 2010
(75 FR 57524).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the staff's initial proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 25, 2011. 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: March 29, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated May 28, and September 30, 2010, and two letters dated
February 14, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to extend the allowed outage time for
the A and B emergency diesel generators from 72 hours to 14 days.
Date of issuance: March 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 188.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75
FR 37476). The letters dated May, 28, and September 30, 2010, and
February 14, 2011 (two letters), 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 March 25, 2011. 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: April 13, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated October 13 and December 21, 2010, and January 18, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System Instrumentation,'' by adding a footnote to Function 8.a
concerning the reactor trip P-4 engineered safety feature actuation
system interlock. The footnote specifies 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. Revised TS Table 3.3.2-1 also identifies 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.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2011.
Effective date: The amendment will be effective upon issuance and
will be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 194.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75
FR 33844). The supplemental letters dated October 13 and December 21,
2010, and January 18, 2011, 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 March 30, 2011. 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: November 30, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' to exclude
portions of the tube below the top of the steam generator tubesheet
from periodic steam generator tube inspections during Refueling Outage
18 and the subsequent operating cycle. In addition, TS 5.6.10, ``Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report'' will be revised to remove a
reference to the previous interim alternate repair criteria and to
provide reporting requirements specific to the temporary alternate
repair criteria.
Date of issuance: April 6, 2011.
Effective date: The amendment is effective upon issuance and will
be implemented prior to MODE 4 entry during startup from Refueling
Outage 18.
Amendment No.: 195.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised
[[Page 21928]]
the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in the Federal Register: February 1, 2011
(76 FR 5623).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2011. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of April 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-9177 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P