[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3508-3513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1215]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0011]
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 December 29, 2011, to January 11, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1514).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0011 in the subject line
of your comments. 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 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-
2012-0011. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher (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, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
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 accessible electronically through ADAMS 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]. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of 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-2012-0011.
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; (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
[[Page 3509]]
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 20874. The 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, 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 email 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 the 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 the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://
[[Page 3510]]
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's 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's 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 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 the
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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20874. 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-
4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email 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: November 22, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would remove
duplicate Technical Specification (TS) requirements and unit-specific
references that are no longer needed. In addition, the proposed
administrative changes would correct typographical errors and provide
clarification to ensure understanding of the required actions of some
of the TSs. The changes would include corrective actions from the Unit
2 event described in Licensee Event Report (LER) 50-529/2011-001. The
proposed changes are administrative or editorial in nature, and would
not result in any change to operating requirements. These
administrative changes are proposed for TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protective
System (RPS) Instrumentation--Operating''; TS 3.3.2, ``Reactor
Protective System (RPS) Instrumentation--Shutdown''; TS 3.3.5,
``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS)
Instrumentation''; TS 3.5.5, ``Refueling Water Tank (RWT)''; TS 3.3.9,
``Control Room Essential Filtration Actuation Signal (CREFAS)''; TS
3.7.11, ``Control Room Essential Filtration System (CREFS)''; TS 5.4,
``Procedures''; and TS 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program.''
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
[[Page 3511]]
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 amendment involves administrative and editorial
changes. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events. The proposed changes do not involve the addition
or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility.
The proposed changes do not affect any plant operations, design
function, or analysis that verifies the capability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design function. The
proposed changes do not change any of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. The
proposed changes do not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and
administrative controls that have the function of preventing or
mitigating any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves administrative and editorial
changes. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be
affected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not
change the design function or operation of any SSCs. The proposed
changes will not result in any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions,
or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing
basis. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
an accident of a new or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves administrative and editorial
changes. The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the changes.
The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
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
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.
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 (GGNS), Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: September 9, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated November 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would (1) Revise
the criticality requirements of Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1,
``Criticality,'' (2) revise the criticality safety analysis (CSA) for
the spent fuel and new fuel storage racks, and (3) delete the spent
fuel pool (SFP) loading criteria operating license (OL) condition in
paragraph 2.C.(46) of Facility Operating License No. NPF-29.
Specifically, the proposed changes to TS 3.4.1 add the following
requirements for two parameters for both the spent fuel storage racks
specified in TS 4.3.1.1 and the new fuel storage racks specified in TS
4.3.1.2:
Fuel assembly maximum k-infinity (1.26) in the normal
reactor core configuration at cold conditions, and
Maximum nominal U-235 enrichment (4.9 weight percent).
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 involves a revision to the GGNS CSA. The
revised CSA does not involve a physical change to any plant systems
nor does it involve a change to any of the accident mitigation
features previously evaluated. The proposed CSA demonstrates
adequate margin to criticality for spent fuel storage rack cells.
The proposed changes to the requirements specified in TS 4.3.1.1
for spent fuel storage racks and TS 4.3.1.2 for new fuel storage
racks are consistent with the revised CSA and impose additional
requirements currently not included in the Technical Specifications.
There is no dose consequence associated with an abnormal
condition since the CSA acceptance criteria preclude criticality and
do not involve a radiological release.
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 proposed change involves: (1) a revision to the CSA; (2) the
addition of new requirements in the TSs, which are consistent with
the CSA; and (3) the deletion of an OL condition, that is superseded
upon approval of the proposed CSA. Neither the SFP CSA nor the
proposed changes to the TS affect the method of spent or new fuel
movement or storage. No physical changes are required to any plant
systems in support of the revised CSA or the proposed TS changes.
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.]
10 CFR 50.68, Criticality Accident Requirements, requires the
spent and fresh fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron
multiplication factor, Keff, less than or equal to 0.95 when fully
flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance for
uncertainties. Therefore, for criticality, the required safety
margin is 5%, including a conservative margin to account for
engineering and manufacturing uncertainties. The revised CSA and
proposed TS changes continue to satisfy this requirement.
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
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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: December 13, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves
(MSIVs),'' and TS 3.7.3, ``Feedwater Isolation Valves (FIVs) and
[[Page 3512]]
Feedwater Control Valves (FCVs) and Associated Bypass Valves,'' by
removing the specific isolation time for the main steam and main
feedwater isolation valves from the associated TS Surveillance
Requirements (SRs) 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.3.1. These requirements will be
relocated to a licensee-controlled document. The changes are
consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler
TSTF-491, Revision 2, ``Removal of Main Steam and Main Feedwater
Valve Isolation Times from Technical Specifications.'' The
availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal
Register on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78472), as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee
incorporated by reference the no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) analysis endorsed by the NRC staff in the notice of
availability of the TS improvement (71 FR 78472; December 29, 2006)
and which was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2006
(71 FR 58884). The October 5, 2006, NSHC analysis is reproduced
below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change allows relocating main steam and main
feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change
Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main
feedwater valves isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time
with the phase, ``within limits.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valve times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of
these isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future changes to the
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments,''
to ensure that such changes do not result in more than minimal
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phase ``within limits.'' The changes do
not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TS
continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation
valves.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phase ``within limits.'' Instituting the
proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main steam
and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or license
controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and
ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is
conducted such that there is no significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is
unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls
to preserve the current margins of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the above 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.
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 20874. 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 NRC's 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, Units 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments: August 31, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Pressure,
Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB)
Limits,'' the bases for TS 3.4.1 and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating
Limits Report,'' by replacing the DNB numeric limits with references
to the CORL. The changes are consistent with TS Task Force change
traveler TSTF-487-A, Revision 1, ``Relocate DNB Parameters to the
COLR.'' The amendments also remove outdated notes in TS 3.4.1 that
were associated with the Unit 2 steam generator replacement in 2003.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented
within 60 days.
[[Page 3513]]
Amendment Nos.: 301 and 278.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 14, 2011 (76
FR 64390).
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: October 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the H. B.
Robinson, Unit 2, Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel
Assemblies,'' to permit the use of AREVA's M5 advanced alloy for
fuel rod cladding and fuel assembly structural components in future
operating cycles. Currently, as stated in TS 4.2.1, the H. B.
Robinson fuel cladding is zircaloy-4. Therefore, an amendment
request is needed in order to use M5 fuel cladding. The proposed
amendment also revises the H. B. Robinson Unit 2 TS 5.6.5.b, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to permit referencing of
analytical methodologies for M5 material and the deletion of
existing analytical methodologies that are no longer planned to be
used by the licensee.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2011.
Effective date: 60 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No. 227.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76
FR 21921).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a safety evaluation dated December 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366,
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: October 29, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February 21, May 27, and October 13,
2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by relocating the specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program using risk-informed
justification (Technical Specification Task Force--425).
Date of issuance: January 3, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-266 and Unit 2-210.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010
(75 FR 77916).
The supplements dated February 21, May 27, and October 13, 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 January 3, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: October 5, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
facility operating license to remove License Condition 2.G. This
license condition described reporting requirements of other
requirements in Section 2.C of the facility operating license. The
change is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
change notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2005
(70 FR 67202), announcing the availability of this improvement
through the consolidated line item improvement process.
Date of issuance: January 6, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented no later than 32 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 90.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76
FR 67490).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: December 10, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated June 16, October 27, and December 13,
2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added new
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.6 to Technical Specification
(TS) 3.3.8, ``Emergency Exhaust System (EES) Actuation
Instrumentation.'' The new SR requires the performance of response
time testing on the portion of the EES required to isolate the
normal fuel building ventilation exhaust flow path and initiate the
fuel building ventilation isolation signal mode of operation. The
amendment also revised TS Table 3.3.8-1, ``EES Actuation
Instrumentation,'' to indicate that new SR 3.3.8.6 applies to
automatic actuation Function 2, Automatic Actuation Logic and
Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS), and Function 3, Fuel Building Exhaust
Radiation--Gaseous. In addition, the specified frequency of new SR
3.3.8.6 was relocated and controlled in accordance with the
licensee's Surveillance Frequency Control Program.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 204.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 8, 2011 (76 FR
12766); revised and republished on November 29, 2011 (76 FR 73733).
The supplemental letter dated June 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
(NSHC) determination.
The supplemental letter dated October 27, 2011, added a new
request for approval to relocate the surveillance frequency of new
SR 3.3.8.6 to the licensee's Surveillance Frequency Control Program.
The proposed NSHC determination for this additional change was not
evaluated in the initial notice (76 FR 12766; March 8, 2011);
therefore, on November 29, 2011, the NRC staff revised and
republished the notice of proposed NSHC incorporating the new change
(76 FR 73733). The republished notice also provided an opportunity
to request a hearing by January 30, 2012, but indicated that if the
Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such hearing would
take place after issuance of the amendment.
The supplemental letter dated December 13, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the application, as
supplemented, did not expand the scope of the application, as
supplemented, and did not change the staff's revised proposed NSHC
determination, as published in the Federal Register on November 29,
2011 (76 FR 73733).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final
NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 30, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-1215 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P