[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73727-73733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30525]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0274]
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 November 3, 2011 to November 16, 2011. The
last biweekly notice was published on November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70768).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0274 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-
2011-0274. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: (301) 492-3668; email: [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://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, 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 email 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-2011-0274.
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
[[Page 73728]]
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92,
this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (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, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 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 significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected],
or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital ID
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
[[Page 73729]]
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email 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 email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://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, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. 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 email to
[email protected].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland;
Date of amendment request: August 8, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify
Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.11 by revising the required power factor value
to be achieved by the diesel generators (DGs) during conduct of the
surveillance test. The proposed change would also modify the existing
note in SR 3.8.1.11 to address offsite power grid conditions that could
exist during surveillance testing.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No.
The first part of the proposed change to SR 3.8.1.11 corrects
the current non-conservative DG power factor value and aligns it
with the power factor value calculated in the design basis
calculation for the worst case design basis accident electrical
loads. This part of
[[Page 73730]]
the proposed change does not affect any analyzed accident
initiators, nor does it affect the units' ability to successfully
respond to any previously evaluated accident. Testing at a more
conservative power factor value better demonstrates the DG's ability
to handle expected electrical loads during worst case design basis
accidents. In addition, this part of the proposed change does not
alter any existing radiological assumptions used in the accident
evaluations nor does it change the operation or maintenance
performed on operating equipment.
The second part of the proposed change modifies an existing note
in SR 3.8.1.11 to allow the required DG power factor not to be
achieved during testing when certain grid conditions exist. This
exception exists to prevent testing the DG in a condition that might
do damage to the DG or cause bus voltage to exceed voltage limits.
This proposed change does not affect any analyzed accident
initiators, nor does it affect the units' ability to successfully
respond to any previously evaluated accident. Additionally there is
no affect on any existing radiological assumptions used in the
accident evaluations nor does it 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?
No.
The first part of the proposed change to SR 3.8.1.11 corrects
the current non-conservative DG power factor value and aligns it
with the power factor value calculated in the design basis
calculation for the worst case design basis accident electrical
loads. Testing to a more conservative power factor better
demonstrates the DG ability to handle expected electrical loads
during worst case design basis accidents. This part of 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 that would introduce a new accident
initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
Additionally there is no change in the types of, or increase in the
amounts of, any effluent that may be released offsite and there is
no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure as a
result of this proposed change. As such, this part of the proposed
change does not introduce a mechanism for initiating a new or
different accident than those previously analyzed.
The second part of the proposed change modifies an existing note
in SR 3.8.1.11 to allow the required DG power factor not to be
achieved during testing when certain grid conditions exist. This
exception exists to prevent testing the DG in a condition that might
do damage to the DG or cause bus voltage to exceed voltage limits.
This part of 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 that would
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 the individual or cumulative
occupational exposure as a result of this proposed change. As such,
this part of the proposed change does not introduce a mechanism for
initiating a new or different accident than those previously
analyzed.
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?
No.
The first part of the proposed change to SR 3.8.1.11 corrects
the current non-conservative DG power factor value and aligns it
with the power factor value calculated in the design basis
calculation for the worst-case design basis accident electrical
loads. Testing to a more conservative power factor more fully
demonstrates the DG ability to handle expected electrical loads
during worst case design basis accidents. This part of 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 any margin of
safety.
The second part of the proposed change modifies an existing note
in SR 3.8.1.11 to allow the required DG power factor not to be
achieved during testing when certain grid conditions exist. This
exception exists to prevent testing the DG in a condition that might
do damage to the DG or cause bus voltage to exceed voltage limits.
This part of 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
any 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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut.
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2) Technical
Specification (TS) surveillance requirements for snubbers to conform to
the revised MPS2 inservice inspection (ISI) program, move the specific
surveillance requirements of TS 3/4.7.8, ``Snubbers,'' to the ``Snubber
Examination, Testing, and Service Life Monitoring Program,'' add a
reference to the program in the administrative controls section of the
MPS2 TSs, and make administrative changes to TS 3/4.7.8.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Section 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would revise SR [surveillance requirement]
4.7.8 to conform the TSs to the revised ISI program for snubbers.
Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring will
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where
the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] has granted specific written
relief, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), or authorized
alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3).
Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not
an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized
alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.8 for inoperable
snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency
with the proposed change to SR 4.7.8. Therefore, the proposed change
does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions or
analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and
components to perform their design functions. The consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 73731]]
Criterion 2
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not change the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a(g) except where the NRC has granted specific written
relief, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(i), or authorized
alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3). Snubbers will continue
to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for
examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with
10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS
ACTION 3.7.8 for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and
is required for consistency with the proposed change to SR 4.7.8.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219; NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket No. 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (DCCNP-2), Berrien County,
Michigan;
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, adding Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rods to the fuel matrix in addition to Zircaloy
or ZIRLOTM fuel rods that are currently in use. The proposed
amendment would also add a Westinghouse topical report regarding
Optimized ZIRLOTM as reference 8 in TS 5.6.5.b, which lists
the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits.
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 would allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC[-
]approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum
1-A ``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse
Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized
ZIRLOTM and demonstrates that Optimized
ZIRLOTM has essentially the same properties as currently
licensed ZIRLOTM. The fuel cladding itself is not an
accident initiator and does not affect accident probability. Use of
Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been shown to meet
all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria and, therefore, will not
increase the consequences of an accident.
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.
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical
Report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the
material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to
those of standard ZIRLOTM. Therefore, Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to those
fabricated from standard ZIRLOTM, thus precluding the
possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a
new or different type of accident.
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 will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not
significantly different from those of standard ZIRLOTM.
Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to
standard ZIRLOTM for all normal operating and accident
scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-
LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, where the slight difference in
Optimized ZIRLOTM material properties relative to
standard ZIRLOTM could have some impact on the overall
accident scenario, plant-specific LOCA analyses using Optimized
ZIRLOTM properties will be performed prior to the use of
fuel assemblies with fuel rods containing Optimized
ZIRLOTM. These LOCA analyses will demonstrate that the
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 will be satisfied when Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding is implemented.
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: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Thomas J. Wengert.
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
[[Page 73732]]
Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available 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 email to
[email protected].
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont;
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2010 as supplemented by
letter dated May 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specifications Section 3.6.A ``Pressure and Temperature
Limitation'' to reflect the pressure and temperature limits for the
reactor coolant system through, approximately the end of the
prospective 20-year renewed license period, depending on the plant
capacity factor.
Date of Issuance: November 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 250.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 22, 2011 (76
FR 9823). The supplemental letter dated May 16, 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 Commision's related evaluation of this amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated dated November 4, 2011. No
significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas;
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation,'' to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable 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. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-513, ``Revise PWR
Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: November 16, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 246.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 6, 2011 (76
FR 55128).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2011. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan;
Date of application for amendment: May 3, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specifications Section 3.4.15 regarding reactor coolant leakage
detection instrumentation to be consistent with Revision 3 of Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change
Traveler, TSTF-513, ``Revise PWR [Pressurized Water Reactor]
Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS [Reactor Coolant System]
Leakage Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: November 1, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 317 (for Unit 1) and 300 (for Unit 2).
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revised the Renewed Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR
34768).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 1, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan;
Date of application for amendment: March 18, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications (TS) in accordance with the previously approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-491.
Specifically the amendment changes Surveillance Requirements 3.7.2.1,
3.7.3.1, and 3.7.3.2 by relocating the closure times for the Steam
Generator Stop Valves, Main Feed Isolation Valves, and Main Feed
Regulation Valves from the TS to the licensee-controlled TS Bases
document.
Date of issuance: November 3, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 318 (for Unit 1) and 301 (for Unit 2).
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments
revised the Renewed Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR
28474).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and
50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia;
Date of application for amendments: March 14, 2011
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TS) ``RHR and Coolant Circulation-Low Water
Level,'' to allow one RHR loop to be operable for up to 2 hours for
surveillance testing provided the other RHR loop is operable and in
operation. This revision is consistent with the Industry/Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
Traveler TSTF-361-A, Revision 2, ``Allow standby SDC [shutdown
cooling]/RHR[residual heat removal]/DHR [decay heat removal] loop to
inoperable to support testing.''
Date of issuance: November 9, 2011.
[[Page 73733]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 163/145.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR
28476).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 9, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and
50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia;
Date of application for amendments: April 29, 2011
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation,'' to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable RCS leakage detection instrument to operable status and
establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more
required monitors are inoperable. This revision is consistent with the
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) standard technical
specification traveler TSTF-513-A, ``Revise PWR [pressurized water
reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
[Detection] Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: November 10, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 164/146.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR
34768).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 10, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November 2011.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-30525 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P