[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61391-61401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25492]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0230]
Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
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 7, 2011, to September 21, 2011.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 20, 2011 (76 FR
58303).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0230 in the subject line
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0230. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://
[[Page 61392]]
www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0230.
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.
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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the
NRC Web site at 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
[[Page 61393]]
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 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 the 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
[[Page 61394]]
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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at 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: June 22, 2011.
Description of Amendment Request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Atmospheric Dump Valves (ADVs).''
Specifically, the amendment would revise the Limiting Condition for
Operation for TS 3.7.4, with corresponding revisions to the TS
Conditions, Required Actions, and Completion Times associated with one
or more inoperable ADV lines. The proposed change would require four
ADV lines to be operable in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4
when a steam generator (SG) is relied upon for heat removal.
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 amendment will revise TS 3.7.4, to require four ADV
lines be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4, when a SG
is relied upon for heat removal. The proposed change to TS 3.7.4 is
consistent with the PVNGS UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]
Chapters 6 and 15 safety analyses. The proposed change does not involve
any design or physical changes to the facility, including the ADV lines
and their associated ADVs, block valves, pneumatic controllers,
instrument power circuits, or control circuits. The design and
functional performance requirements, operational characteristics, and
reliability of the ADV lines remain unchanged. Therefore, there is no
impact on the design safety function of the ADVs to open (which
mitigates certain postulated accidents by providing Reactor Coolant
System heat removal) nor on the design safety function of the ADVs to
close (which mitigates certain postulated accidents by providing
containment isolation). Furthermore, there is no change with respect to
an inadvertent opening of an ADV (as a potential transient initiator).
With regard to the consequences of postulated design basis
accidents and the equipment required for mitigation of those accidents,
the proposed TS changes involve no design or physical changes to the
ADV lines or any other equipment required for accident mitigation. The
proposed ADV TS change does not affect any design basis analysis or the
results of those analyses. The change provides additional assurance
that ADVs will be available as required.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
analyzed.
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 amendment will revise TS 3.7.4, to require four ADV
lines be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4, when a SG
is relied upon for heat removal. The proposed change to TS 3.7.4 is
consistent with the PVNGS UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 safety analyses. The
proposed change does not involve any design or physical changes to the
facility, including the ADV lines and their associated ADVs, block
valves, pneumatic controllers, instrument power circuits, or control
circuits. No physical alteration of the plant is involved. The proposed
change does not involve or introduce any changes to plant procedures
that could cause a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change ensures that the ADVs perform
their intended functions during all design basis accidents for which
they are credited. The proposed change does not involve the creation of
any new or different kind of accident initiator. The proposed change
does not create any new failure modes for the ADVs and does not affect
the interaction between the ADVs and any other system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment will revise TS 3.7.4, to require four ADV
lines be OPERABLE in MODES 1, 2, and 3, as well as in MODE 4, when a SG
is relied upon for heat removal. The proposed change to TS 3.7.4 is
consistent with the PVNGS UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 safety analyses. The
proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits or
limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes to
instrument and/or system actuation setpoints are involved. Safety and
Branch Technical Position (BTP) RSB 5-1 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.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the 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.
Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of Amendment Request: August 12, 2011.
Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would
revise TS 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,'' by relocating
the current stored diesel fuel oil numerical volume requirements from
the Technical Specifications (TS) to the TS Bases so that it may be
modified under licensee control. The TS is modified so that the stored
diesel fuel oil inventory will require that a 7 day supply be available
for each diesel generator. Condition A in the Action table and
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.3.1 are revised to reflect the above
change.
Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination:
[[Page 61395]]
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 relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil
required to support 7 day operation of the onsite diesel generators,
and the volume equivalent to a 6 day supply, to licensee control. The
specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6 day supply is
calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in Regulatory
Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel
Generators'' and ANSI-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for Standby Diesel-
Generators'' based on the diesel generator manufacturer's consumption
values including consideration of minimum required energy content.
Because the requirement to maintain a 7 day supply of diesel fuel oil
is not changed and is consistent with the assumptions in the accident
analyses, and the actions taken when the volume of fuel oil are less
than a 6 day supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
The proposed change also relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil
required to support one hour of diesel generator operation at full load
in the day tank. The specific volume and time is not changed and is
consistent with the existing plant design basis to support the
emergency diesel generator under accident loading conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change does
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures that the
diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident analysis. The
proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil
required to support 7 day operation of the onsite diesel generators,
and the volume equivalent to a 6 day supply, and one hour day tank
supply to licensee control. As the bases for the existing limits on
diesel fuel oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident
analysis assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General
Council--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 20, 2011.
Description of Amendment Request: Entergy Operations, Inc. (the
licensee), will be replacing the two Waterford 3 steam generators (SGs)
during the 18th refueling outage which will commence in the fall of
2012. The existing Waterford 3 Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.9,
``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' contains an alternate repair
criterion for SG tube inspections that is no longer applicable to the
replacement SGs. Additionally, the replacement SGs will contain
improved Alloy 690 thermally treated (TT) tubing material. Therefore,
the SG tubing inservice inspection frequencies may be extended beyond
that currently allowed by the Waterford TSs. The proposed amendment
would modify TS 3/4.4.4, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' TS
6.5.9, and TS 6.9.1.5, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to
reflect the above changes.
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 continues to implement the Waterford 3 Steam
Generator (SG) Program performance criteria for tube structural
integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational leakage for the
replacement SGs. Meeting the performance criteria provides reasonable
assurance that the replacement SG tubing will remain capable of
fulfilling its specific safety function of maintaining reactor coolant
system (RCS) pressure boundary integrity throughout each operating
cycle and in the unlikely event of a design basis accident.
Sufficient SG tube structural margin above the 40 [percent (%)] SG
tube plugging criteria is retained for the replacement SGs to ensure
that the probability of an accident is unchanged. The replacement SGs
are designed with substantial margin to burst. Therefore, the proposed
change does not affect the probability of a[n] SGTR [steam generator
tube rupture] accident. The extension of the SG tube inspection
frequency after initial inspection is based on the low likelihood of
having potential tube flaws and is considered to be an acceptable
inspection period to preserve pressure boundary integrity. As a result,
there will be no affect on the previous dose analysis reported in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report [(UFSAR)] and the consequences of
any accident are unchanged.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Steam generator tube rupture events have already been postulated
and analyzed in the Waterford 3 [UFSAR]. The improved Alloy 690TT SG
tubing material in the Waterford 3 replacement SG reduces the
likelihood of creating new or different types of tubing flaws. The
proposed changes do not reduce the design requirements of the SG tubes
that would affect the current accident analysis. The proposed amendment
does not impact any other plant systems or components. The SG tube
inspection TS requirements assure that potential tubing flaws will be
detected prior to affecting tube integrity and the RCS pressure
boundary.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or
[[Page 61396]]
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The structural integrity, accident induced leakage, and operational
leakage performance criteria required by the Waterford 3 technical
specifications provide substantial design margin for assuring SG tube
integrity against the possibility of a[n] SG tube pressure boundary
failure. The analyzed 55% structural limit provides sufficient margin
above the SG tube plugging criteria of 40% for consideration of eddy
current measurement uncertainty and allowance for inspection cycle flaw
growth. The proposed change removes an existing alternate repair
criterion that is not applicable to the replacement SGs and establishes
appropriate SG tube subsequent inspection periods consistent with the
new SG tubing design. The replacement SGs will continue to meet their
required performance criteria. The Waterford 3 SG tube inspection
program will assure that this margin is maintained through the
operational life of the plant.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of Amendment Request: June 13, 2011.
Description of Amendment Request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.1.2, ``Reactivity
Anomalies,'' through a revision to the method for calculating core
reactivity for the purpose of performing an anomaly check.
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 TS change does not affect any plant systems,
structures, or components designed for the prevention or mitigation of
previously evaluated accidents. The amendment would only change how the
reactivity anomaly check is performed. Verifying that the core
reactivity is consistent with predicted values ensures that accident
and transient safety analyses remain valid. This amendment changes the
LCO 3.1.2 and Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.2.1 requirements such
that the check is performed by a direct comparison of keff
rather than by comparing predicted to actual control rod density. On-
line core monitoring systems, such as the one currently in use at
Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS), are capable of performing the
direct measurement of reactivity.
Therefore, since the reactivity anomaly check will continue to be
performed by a viable method, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequence of any
previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This TS amendment request does not involve any changes to the
operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-related or otherwise
important to safety, system. All systems that are important to safety
will continue to be operated and maintained within their design bases.
The proposed changes to LCO 3.1.2 and SR 3.1.2.1 will only provide a
new, efficient method of detecting an unexpected change in core
reactivity.
Since all systems continue to be operated within their design
bases, no new failure modes are introduced, nor is the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This proposed TS amendment proposes to change the method for
performing the reactivity anomaly surveillance from a comparison of
predicted to actual control rod density to a comparison of predicted to
actual keff. The direct comparison of keff
provides a more direct method of calculating any differences in the
expected core reactivity. The reactivity anomaly check will continue to
be performed at the same frequency as is currently required by the TS,
only the method of performing the check will be changed. Consequently,
core reactivity assumptions made in safety analyses will continue to be
adequately verified.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not therefore involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Jacob I. Zimmerman.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket Nos. 50-315 and
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien
County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 1, 2011, as supplemented on
September 2, 2011.
Description of amendment request: Currently CNP Units 1 and 2 have
a fire protection program that is based on compliance with 10 CFR
50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(b), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, NRC guidance
document Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1 Appendix A, and a
license condition for each unit. The proposed amendment would
transition the CNP fire protection program to a new risk-informed,
performance-based alternative per 10 CFR 50.48(c) which incorporates by
reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805
(NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light
Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants--2001.'' In the rulemaking
that led to promulgation of 10 CFR 50.48(c), the NRC stated that NFPA
805 provides an acceptable alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b), and
satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A
to 10 CFR Part 50. Upon approval of the transition to NFPA 805, the CNP
licensing basis per 10 CFR 50.48(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R will
be superseded. To achieve the transition to the new requirements
outlined in NFPA 805, the licensee is implementing the methodology
identified in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document 04-02, ``Guidance
for Implementing a Risk-informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection
Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).''
[[Page 61397]]
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. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, 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.
Upon approval by the NRC staff, the risk-informed and performance-
based NFPA 805 fire protection program will provide the same level of
safety as the current licensing basis. None of the accidents evaluated
in the CNP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) were postulated
to be initiated by fire protection equipment or elements of the fire
protection program. Thus, the proposed transition of the fire
protection licensing basis to NFPA 805 will not involve any change,
increase or decrease, in the probability of previously evaluated
accidents.
Elements or equipment of the CNP fire protection program have no
impact in the evaluation of the consequences of accidents in the UFSAR;
thus, the consequences of the previously evaluated accidents will
remain the same regardless of whether the current fire protection
licensing basis or NFPA 805 is in place.
Therefore, the proposed licensing basis change will not lead to any
change, increase or decrease, of the consequences of previously
evaluated accidents.
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 of the fire protection licensing basis to NFPA
805 pertains only to the fire protection program and equipment (e.g.,
modifying fire wrap, modifying control circuitry of certain fire
protection systems, changing the carbon dioxide system from manual
actuation to automatic). The proposed change does not affect
structures, systems, or components that were involved with previously
evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The proposed change does not involve any
safety analysis acceptance criteria in the current CNP licensing basis,
and does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the
reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR.
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
the NRC staff's 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 Licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of Amendment Request: August 1, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated August 17, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendments: The proposed change requests the
adoption of an approved change to the Standard Technical Specifications
(STS) for Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431), to allow relocation of
specific technical specification (TS) surveillance frequencies to a
licensee-controlled program. The proposed change is described in and
consistent with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425-A, Revision 3,
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed
Technical Specifications Task Force (RI-TSTF) Initiative 5b''
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
No. ML090850642). The Notice of Availability of TSTF-425, Revision 3
was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996).
The proposed change would relocate surveillance frequencies to a
licensee-controlled program termed as the Surveillance Frequency
Control Program (SFCP). This change is applicable to licensees using
probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456).
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 (consistent with the no significant hazards consideration
published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996) for
TSTF-425, Revision 3), which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased. The systems and components required by the technical
specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are
still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the
surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The
changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions
and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety?
[[Page 61398]]
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for
systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable
codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will
continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including
the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS), since these are not
affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there
is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the
plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated
surveillance frequency, Luminant Power [Luminant Generation Company
LLC] will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS
SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed
changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177 [``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision-making:
Technical Specifications,'' August 1998 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML003740176)].
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Docket No. 50-29, Yankee Nuclear Power
Station, Franklin County, Massachusetts.
Date of Amendment Request: August 10, 2011.
Description of Amendment Request: The amendment proposes to revise
License Condition C(3) ``Physical Protection''. It is proposed to
update the title of the Physical Security Plan, from the ``Yankee
Nuclear Power Station Defueled Security Plan'' Revision 0, dated
October 13, 1992, and ``Yankee Defueled Security Training and
Qualification Plan'' Revision 0, dated October 13, 1992, to the
``Physical Security Plan for Yankee Rowe Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation.''
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 amendment is a title change only. There is no
reduction in commitments in the Physical Security Plan therefore; the
proposed amendment 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 amendment is a title change only. There is no
reduction in commitments in the Physical Security Plan 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 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: Joseph Fay, Yankee Atomic Electric Company,
362 Injun Hollow Road, East Hampton, Connecticut, 06424-3099.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael D. Waters.
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 NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland, Date of Application for Amendments: May 11, 2011
Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revise a note to
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protective System (RPS)
Instrumentation--Operating,'' to change the value at which the RPS trip
function, Steam Generator Pressure--Low, is bypassed from 785 psig to
785 psia. The revision corrects an administrative error that occurred
during Calvert Cliffs' conversion to the Improved Standard TSs.
Date of Issuance: September 8, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
45 days.
Amendment Nos.: 300 and 277.
[[Page 61399]]
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR
34766).
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of Application for Amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010,
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, and May 17, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment approves the Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revises
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such
approval. The amendment specifies that the licensee fully implement and
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
Date of Issuance: August 31, 2011.
Effective Date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the
licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this
license amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10
CFR 50.90.
Amendment Nos.: 210.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR
68834). The supplemental letters contain 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 August 31, 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: May 28, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated November 15, 2010, March 23, 2011, and May 2, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to allow manual operation of the containment
spray system and to change the setpoints for the refueling water
storage tank.
Date of Issuance: September 12, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the first entry into Mode 4 after the refueling outage where
all of the modifications associated with the amendment have been
completed.
Amendment Nos.: 265/245.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Licenses and the Technical Specifications.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (75 FR
61524). The supplements dated November 15, 2010, March 23, 2011, and
May 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 September 12, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: October 6, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the note in
Surveillance Requirement 3.5.4.1 for the Refueling Water Storage Tank
(RWST) Technical Specification (TS). Specifically, the amendment will
require monitoring of the RWST temperature every 24 hours when the RWST
heating steam supply isolation valves are not locked closed.
Date of Issuance: September 19, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 244.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: December 28, 2010 (75
FR 81669).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation Dated September 19, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of Application for Amendment: April 6, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment modified the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable; and make TS Bases changes which reflect the proposed
changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design
basis related to operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler
TSTF-514, ``Revise BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements
and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation,'' as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process.
Date of Issuance: September 12, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 187.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: May 3, 2011 (76 FR
24928).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 12, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of Application for Amendment: September 24, 2010, supplemented
by letters dated March 18, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 27, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment revises Technical
[[Page 61400]]
Specification 3.4.1.2.3, to allow up to two Main Steam Safety Valves
(MSSVs) per steam generator to be inoperable with no required reduction
in power level. It also revises the required maximum overpower trip
setpoints for any additional inoperable MSSVs consistent with the plant
transient analysis. The change requires that with less than four MSSVs
associated with either steam generator operable, the plant would be
required to be brought to the hot shutdown condition.
Date of Issuance: September 14, 2011.
Effective Date: Immediately, and shall be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 277.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised
the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial Notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75
FR 74096).
The supplements dated March 18, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 27,
2011, 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 14, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of Application for Amendment: October 15, 2010.
Brief Description of Amendment: The amendment modifies the Duane
Arnold Energy Center Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49 to
remove the parent company guarantee Licensing Condition and apply other
administrative changes to the formatting of the affected renewed
license pages.
Date of Issuance: September 8, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment did
not revise the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9825).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of Application for Amendments: April 8, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendments: The amendments revised and added a
new Condition C to Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ``RCS [Reactor
Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation'' and revise the
associated TS Bases. New Condition C is applicable when the primary
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor is the only operable
TS-required instrument monitoring RCS leakage, i.e., TS-required
particulate and sump monitors are inoperable. New Condition C Required
Actions require monitoring RCS leakage by obtaining and analyzing grab
samples of the primary containment atmosphere every 12 hours,
monitoring RCS leakage using administrative means every 12 hours, and
taking action to restore monitoring capability using another monitor
within 7 days. Additionally, minor editorial revisions are proposed to
ensure continuity of the TS format. These changes are the result of new
Condition C and consist of re-lettering existing Conditions C and D as
Conditions D and E, respectively.
Date of Issuance: September 8, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 256 for Unit 1 and 236 for Unit 2.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial Notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR
31376).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 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: September 22, 2010, as
supplemented by letter dated April 28, 2011.
Brief description of Amendments: The amendment allows Hope Creek
Generating Station to operate at a reduced feedwater temperature for
purposes of extending the normal fuel cycle. The amendment also allows
operation with feedwater heaters out-of-service at any time during the
operating cycle. In addition, the amendment revises surveillance
requirements related to testing of the Oscillation Power Range Monitor.
Date of Issuance: September 14, 2011.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 190.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and the Facility Operating License.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: January 10, 2011 (76 FR
1466). The letter dated April 28, 2011, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010,
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, and May 17, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendment: The amendments approve the cyber
security plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revise
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such
approval. The amendments specify that the licensee fully implement and
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
Date of Issuance: August 31, 2011.
Effective Date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the
licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this
license amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10
CFR 50.90.
Amendment Nos.: 264 (for Unit 1) and 245 (for Unit 2).
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: The amendments
revised
[[Page 61401]]
the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR
76047). The supplemental letters contain 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 August 31, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of Application for Amendment: July 12, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated August 5, 2010, September 23, 2010, November 10, 2010,
December 13, 2010, April 4, 2011, and May 17, 2011.
Brief Description of Amendment: The amendments approve the cyber
security plan (CSP) and associated implementation schedule, and revises
the license condition regarding physical protection to reflect such
approval. The amendments specify that the licensee fully implement and
maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved CSP as
required by 10 CFR 73.54.
Date of Issuance: August 31, 2011.
Effective Date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of issuance. The implementation of the CSP, including the key
intermediate milestone dates and the full implementation date, shall be
in accordance with the implementation schedule submitted by the
licensee on April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff with this
license amendment. All subsequent changes to the NRC-approved CSP
implementation schedule will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10
CFR 50.90.
Amendment Nos.: 276 (for Unit 1) and 276 (for Unit 2)
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR
76047). The supplemental letters contain 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 August 31, 2011.
No Significant Hazards Consideration Comments Received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of September 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-25492 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P