[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16876-16889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0049]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined 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 or
combined license, as applicable, 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 February 21, 2013, to March 6, 2013. The
last biweekly notice was published on March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14126).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publically available,
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-
0049. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0049. 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.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0049 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document by any of the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0049.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. Documents may be viewed in
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0049 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment
[[Page 16877]]
submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions
into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined 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 Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 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 or
combined 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. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC
Library on the NRC's 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
[[Page 16878]]
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://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's
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's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866ndash;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.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon
which the filing is based is materially different from information
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
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's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
[[Page 16879]]
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket Nos.: 50-409 and 72-046, La Crosse
Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), La Crosse County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: December 10, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise certain license conditions and to remove TS definitions,
operational requirements, and specific design requirements that are no
longer applicable with all spent fuel in dry cask storage at the
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The proposed
changes to the TS also remove administrative control requirements that
have been relocated to the LACBWR Quality Assurance Program Description
(QAPD) or are superseded by regulation or other guidance.
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reflect the complete transfer of all spent
nuclear fuel from the Fuel Element Storage Well (FESW) to the
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Design basis
SAFSTOR accidents related to the FESW were discussed in the LACBWR
Decommissioning Plan. These postulated accidents were predicated on
spent nuclear fuel being stored in the FESW. With the removal of the
spent fuel from the FESW, there are no remaining important to safety
systems required to be monitored and there are no remaining credible
accidents that require that actions of a Certified Fuel Handler to
prevent occurrence or mitigate the consequences.
The LACBWR Decommissioning Plan provided a discussion of
radiological events postulated to occur during SAFSTOR with the
bounding consequence resulting from a materials handling event. The
proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on decommissioning
activities or any postulated consequences.
The proposed change to the Design Features section of the
Technical Specifications clarifies that the spent fuel is being
stored in dry casks within an ISFSI. The probability or consequences
of accidents at the ISFSI are evaluated in the dry cask vendor's
FSAR and are independent of the SAFSTOR accidents that were
evaluated in the LACBWR Decommissioning Plan.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reflect the reduced operational risks as a
result of the spent nuclear fuel being transferred to dry casks
within an ISFSI. The proposed changes do not modify any physical
systems, or components. The plant conditions for which the LACBWR
Decommissioning Plan design basis accidents relating to spent fuel
were evaluated are no longer applicable. The proposed changes do not
affect any of the parameters or conditions that could contribute to
the initiation of an accident. Design basis accidents associated
with the dry cask storage of spent fuel are already considered in
the dry cask system's Final Safety Analysis Report. No new accident
scenarios are created as a result of deleting non-applicable
operational and administrative requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
As described above, the proposed changes reflect the reduced
operational risks as a result of the spent nuclear fuel being
transferred to dry casks within an ISFSI. The design basis and
accident assumptions within the LACBWR Decommissioning Plan and the
Technical Specifications relating to spent fuel are no longer
applicable. The proposed changes do not affect remaining plant
operations, systems, or components supporting decommissioning
activities. In addition, the proposed changes do not result in a
change in initial conditions, system response time, or in any other
parameter affecting the SAFSTOR accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
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. Thomas Zaremba, Wheeler, Van Sickle and
Anderson, Suite 801, 25 West Main Street, Madison, WI 53703-3398.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50-016, Fermi 1, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
(ML13002A037) would revise the Fermi 1 operating license to change its
name on the license to ``DTE Electric Company.'' This name change is
purely administrative in nature. Detroit Edison is a wholly owned
subsidiary of DTE Energy Company, and this name change is part of a set
of name changes of DTE Energy subsidiaries to conform their names to
the ``DTE'' brand name. No other changes are contained within this
request. This request does not involve a transfer of control over or of
an interest in the license for Fermi 1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed amendment changes the name of the owner licensee.
The proposed amendment is purely administrative in nature. The
functions, powers, resources and management of the owner licensee
will not change. Detroit Edison, which will be renamed DTE Electric
Company, will remain the licensee of the facility. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors,
and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed amendment is purely administrative in nature. The
functions of the owner licensee will not change. These changes do
not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), and installed
equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. Thus,
no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed amendment is a name change to reflect the new name
of the owner licensee. The proposed amendment is purely
administrative in nature. The functions of the owner licensee will
not change. Detroit Edison, which will be renamed DTE Electric
Company, will remain the licensee of the facility, and its functions
will not change. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. There are no changes to
setpoints at which protective
[[Page 16880]]
actions are initiated, and the operability requirements for
equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not
affected.
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: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General
Council--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: January 11, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
update the Fermi 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to
describe methodology and results of the analysis performed to evaluate
the protection of the plant's structures, systems and components (SSCs)
from tornado generated missiles. The analysis is consistent with the
guidance provided in Regulatory Issue Summary 2008-14, ``Use of TORMIS
Computer Code for Assessment of Tornado Missile Protection.''
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.
Proposed for NRC review and approval are changes to the Fermi 2
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) which in essence
constitute a license amendment to incorporate use of an NRC approved
methodology to assess the need for additional positive (physical)
tornado missile protection of specific features at the Fermi 2 site.
The UFSAR changes will reflect use of the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) Topical Report ``Tornado Missile Risk Evaluation
Methodology'' (EPRI NP-2005), Volumes I and II. As noted in the NRC
Safety Evaluation Report on this topic dated October 26, 1983, the
current licensing criteria governing tornado missile protection are
contained in Standard Review Plan (SRP) Sections 3.5.1.4 and 3.5.2.
These criteria generally specify that safety-related systems be
provided positive tornado missile protection (barriers) from the
maximum credible tornado threat. However, SRP Section 3.5.1.4
includes acceptance criteria permitting relaxation of the above
deterministic guidance, if it can be demonstrated that the
probability of damage to unprotected essential safety-related
features is sufficiently small.
As permitted in NRC Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) sections,
the combined probability will be maintained below an allowable
level, i.e., an acceptance criterion threshold, which reflects an
extremely low probability of occurrence. The Fermi 2 approach
assumes that if the sum of the individual probabilities calculated
for tornado missiles striking and damaging portions of important
systems or components is greater than or equal to 10\-6\ per year
per unit, then installation of unique missile barriers would be
needed to lower the total cumulative probability below the
acceptance criterion of 10-6 per year per unit.
With respect to the probability of occurrence or the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR, the
possibility of a tornado reaching the Fermi 2 site and causing
damage to plant structures, systems and components is a design basis
event considered in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The
changes being proposed do not affect the probability that the
natural phenomenon (a tornado) will reach the plant, but from a
licensing basis perspective they do affect the probability that
missiles generated by the winds of the tornado might strike and
damage certain plant systems or components. There are a limited
number of safety-related components that could theoretically be
struck and consequently damaged by tornado-generated missiles. The
probability of tornado-generated missile strikes on ``important''
systems and components (as discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.117,
``Tornado Design Classification'') is what is to be analyzed using
the probability methods discussed above. The combined probability of
damage will be maintained below an extremely low acceptance
criterion to ensure overall plant safety. The proposed change is not
considered to constitute a significant increase in the probability
of occurrence or the consequences of an accident, due to the
extremely low probability of damage due to tornado-generated
missiles and thus an extremely low probability of a radiological
release.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated
accidents.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The possibility of a tornado reaching the Fermi 2 site is a
design basis event that is explicitly considered in the UFSAR. This
change involves recognition of the acceptability of performing
tornado missile probability calculations in accordance with
established regulatory guidance. The change therefore deals with an
established design basis event (the tornado). Therefore, the
proposed change would not contribute to the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from those previously analyzed. The
probability and consequences of such a design basis event are
addressed in Question 1 above.
Based on the above discussions, the proposed change will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than
those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing Fermi 2 licensing basis for protection of safety-
related equipment required for safe shutdown from design basis
tornado generated missiles is to provide positive missile barriers
for all safety-related systems and components. With the change, it
will be recognized that there is an extremely low probability, below
an established acceptance limit, that a limited subset of the
``important'' systems and components could be struck and
consequently damaged. The change from protecting all safety-related
systems and components to ensuring an extremely low probability of
occurrence of tornado-generated missile strikes and consequential
damage on portions of important systems and components is not
considered to constitute a significant decrease in the margin of
safety due to that extremely low probability.
Therefore, the changes associated with this license amendment
request do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bruce R. Masters, DTE Energy, General
Council--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station (VYNPS), Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise VYNPS Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.B to provide an action
statement for inoperable control rods consistent with the Standard
Technical Specification (STS) provision (NUREG-1433, Revision 4).
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:
[[Page 16881]]
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident. The adding of an
additional, restrictive action statement for inoperable equipment,
consistent with the STS does not alter any accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 amendment does not involve any new modes of
operation. The change establishes additional restrictive controls
for equipment that is considered inoperable. The proposed amendment
does not change how the control rod system is operated or change the
design configuration of the control rods. No new accident precursors
are introduced. No new or different types of equipment will be
installed. The methods governing plant operation remain bounded by
current 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 amendment does not involve any new methods of
operation. The change establishes additional restrictive controls
for equipment that is considered inoperable. The proposed amendment
does not change how the control rod system is operated or change the
design configuration of the control rods. No new or different types
of equipment will be installed. The methods governing plant
operation remain bounded by current safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station (VYNPS), Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the licensing basis relative to how the station satisfies the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.63, ``Loss of all alternating current
power.'' The VYNPS currently relies on the Vernon Hydroelectric Station
(VHS) as the alternate alternating current (AAC) power source providing
acceptable capability to withstand station blackout under 10 CFR
50.63(c)(2). The VYNPS proposes to replace the VHS with an onsite
diesel generator as the AAC power source providing this capability
which would involve changes to the facility and procedures described in
the VYNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
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 amendment does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed amendment
replaces one AAC power source (the VHS) with an additional onsite
AAC power source (diesel generator). This equipment can not initiate
a design basis accident and is not used to mitigate the consequences
of design basis accidents. The equipment is used to mitigate the
consequences of a station blackout as required by 10 CFR 50.63.
Station blackout events are not considered design basis accidents
and do not result in radiological consequences.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 amendment does not involve any new modes of
operation. The change provides an alternate means to provide AAC
power to the station. The location of the SBO DG does not create the
possibility of a different kind of accident. No new accident
precursors are introduced. Station procedures will be revised to
align the AAC source to provide the required power within
established coping times. The methods governing plant operation
remain bounded by current 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 design of the new AAC source will accommodate the loading
associated with the proceduralized station blackout response and
safety margins will be maintained. The design of the system will
meet regulatory guidance and be within station design analysis. The
station safety analysis results are unchanged and margin to
regulatory limits is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated January 31, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the pressure-temperature limit curves and low temperature
overpressure protection limits in the Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.1.2,
``Pressurization Heatup and Cooldown Limitations,'' TS Section 3.1.12,
``Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve, Block Valve, and Low-
Temperature Overpressure Protection,'' and TS Section 4.5.2,
``Emergency Core Cooling System.'' The proposed changes reflect revised
fluence projections out to 50.2 effective full-power years (EFPY) as
compared to the current projections which go to 29 EFPY. The submittal,
dated December 14, 2012, also includes a corresponding exemption
request to use an alternate initial reference temperature for nil-
ductility transition (RTNDT) for Linde 80 weld materials per
NRC-approved Topical Report BAW-2308, ``Initial RTNDT of
Linde 80 Weld Materials,'' Revisions 1-A and 2-A.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
[[Page 16882]]
licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment will revise the reactor coolant system
heatup, cooldown, and inservice leak hydrostatic test limitations
(Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.1.2 (``Pressurization Heatup
and Cooldown Limitations'')) for the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) to
a maximum of 50.2 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) in accordance
with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. Further, the proposed amendment
revises TMI, Unit 1 Technical Specification Sections 3.1.12
(``Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV), Block Valve, and
Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP)''), and 4.5.2
(``Emergency Core Cooling System'') for Low Temperature Overpressure
Protection (LTOP) requirements to reflect the revised P-T limits of
the reactor vessel. P-T limits for the TMI, Unit 1 reactor vessel
were developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix G (``Fracture Toughness Requirements''), utilizing the
analytical methods and flaw acceptance criteria of Topical Report
BAW-10046A (AREVA NP Document BAW-10046A, Rev. 2, ``Methods of
Compliance with Fracture Toughness and Operational Requirements of
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G,'' by H. W. Behnke et al., June 1986) and
ASME Code Section XI, Appendix G (``Fracture Toughness Criteria for
Protection Against Failure,'' 1995 Edition with Addenda through
1996) which are previously approved NRC standards for the
preparation of P-T limit curves. Updating the P-T limit curves for
additional EFPY maintains the level of assurance that Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity will be maintained, as specified
in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. Additionally, this proposed amendment
deletes administrative requirements contained in TS 3.1.2.4 and
3.1.2.5 which provide reporting requirements related to the
preparation and submittal of P-T curves that are outdated or
contained in regulation.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes incorporate methodologies that either have
been approved or accepted for use by the NRC (provided that any
conditions/limitations are satisfied). The P-T limit curves and LTOP
limits will provide the same level of protection to the Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary as was previously evaluated. Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity will continue to be maintained
in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and the assumed
accident performance of plant structures, systems and components
will not be affected. Additionally, this proposed amendment deletes
administrative requirements contained in TS 3.1.2.4 and 3.1.2.5.
These changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the function of the Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary or its response during plant transients.
By calculating the P-T limits and associated LTOP limits using NRC-
approved methodology, adequate margins of safety relating to Reactor
Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity are maintained. Additionally,
this proposed amendment deletes administrative requirements
contained in TS 3.1.2.4 and 3.1.2.5. The proposed changes do not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. These
changes will ensure that protective actions are initiated and the
operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for
accident mitigation are not affected.
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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete various reporting requirements contained in the Technical
Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the proposed amendment will delete
the Sealed Source Contamination Special Report and the Startup Report,
as well as the plant-specific annual reports regarding periodic Leak
Reduction Program tests, Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve and
Pressurizer Safety Valve challenges, specific activity analysis in
which the primary coolant exceeds the limits of TS 3.1.4.1, and major
changes to radioactive waste treatment systems.
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 changes do not involve the modification of any
plant equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes will
have no impact on any safety related structures, systems, or
components. The reporting requirements proposed for deletion are not
required because the requirements are adequately addressed by other
regulatory requirements, or are no longer warranted.
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 changes have no impact on the design, function or
operation of any plant structure, system or component. The proposed
changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The
reporting requirements proposed for deletion are not required
because the requirements are adequately addressed by other
regulatory requirements, or are no longer warranted.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes.
Margins of safety are unaffected by deletion of the reporting
requirements.
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.
[[Page 16883]]
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: January 18, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise DBNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.17, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube
Integrity''; TS 3.7.18, ``Steam Generator Level''; TS 5.5.8, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Program''; and TS 5.6.6, ``Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report.'' The proposed revision to these TSs is to support
plant operations following the replacement of the original SGs which is
scheduled to be completed in April 2014. The proposed changes to TS
3.4.17, TS 5.5.8, and TS 5.6.6 would impose requirements that reflect
the analysis and tube materials of the replacement SGs. These changes
are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler
TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection
Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection,'' which was approved by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on October 27, 2011. The proposed
revision to TS 5.5.8 also includes minor editorial changes and
eliminates the requirements for special visual inspections of the
internal auxiliary feedwater header, since this component will not be
part of the replacement SGs.
The proposed changes to TS 3.7.18 would impose inventory limits on
the secondary-side that reflect the design characteristics and
dimensions of the replacement SGs. The revised limits will ensure that
plant operations with the replacement SGs is bounded by the values used
in the existing main steam line break analysis presented in the DBNPS
updated safety analysis report.
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.
For TS 3.4.17, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' a steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is the relevant design basis
accident analyzed in the licensing basis for DBNPS. TS 3.4.17 and TS
5.5.8, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' impose monitoring and
inspection requirements that ensure tube integrity is maintained.
The proposed changes to these TSs would implement monitoring and
inspection requirements appropriate for the design and materials of
the replacement SGs. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and
sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes
are inspected such that that the integrity of the SG tubes is
verified to be maintained at a level that prevents an increase in
the probability of a SGTR.
Therefore the proposed changes to these TSs will not increase
the probability of a SGTR.
The radiological consequences of a SGTR are bounded by using
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis, and
are dependent upon the pre-existing primary-to-secondary leak rate,
the flow rate through the ruptured tube, the radiological isotopic
content of the RCS [reactor coolant system] and the release paths.
The monitoring and inspection requirements imposed by TS 3.4.17 and
TS 5.5.8 are intended to ensure that SG tube integrity is
maintained. The proposed changes to these TSs would implement
monitoring and inspection requirements appropriate for the design
and materials of the replacement SGs and would not affect
radiological releases in the event of an SGTR. The radiological
isotopic content of the RCS and the release paths are not affected
by any of the requirements in the current TS 3.4.17 or TS 5.5.8 or
proposed revisions thereto. Therefore, the proposed changes to these
TSs will not increase the consequences of a SGTR.
TS 5.6.6, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' specifies
information that is to be reported to the NRC following SG
inspections performed in accordance with the Steam Generator Program
requirements contained in TS 5.5.8. The requirement to provide this
report is administrative in nature and the content of this report
can have no effect on the probability or the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
LCO [limiting condition for operation] 3.7.18, ``Steam Generator
Level'' ensures that the plant is operated within the SG inventory
limits that were used as initial conditions in the current accident
analysis for a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB). The SG inventory is not
an accident initiator and does not affect any accident initiator.
Therefore, the proposed changes in SG inventory limits will not
increase the probability of a MSLB accident.
The radiological consequences of a MSLB are dependent upon the
total SG inventory released, the SG primary-to-secondary leakage
rate, the radiological isotopic content of the RCS, and the release
paths. The revision to LCO 3.7.18 will ensure that the total
inventory released remains bounded by the existing analysis. None of
the other factors listed above are affected by the revised operating
limits on SG inventory that are proposed in the revisions to LCO
3.7.18.
Therefore, the proposed changes in SG inventory limits will not
increase the consequences of a MSLB.
Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes support replacement of the SGs at the
DBNPS. Replacement of the SGs is being performed as a design
modification in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59,
``Changes, tests and experiments.'' The proposed changes to TS
3.4.17, TS 5.5.8 and TS 5.6.6 would implement monitoring and
inspection requirements appropriate for the design and materials of
the replacement SGs, and establish appropriate reporting
requirements. These changes would not affect the method of operation
of the SGs. The proposed changes to TS 3.7.18 would ensure that the
replacement SGs will be operated in accordance with existing
analyses. None of the proposed changes would introduce any changes
to the plant design. In addition, the proposed changes would not
impact any other plant system or component.
The proposed changes would continue to prevent loss of SG tube
integrity, and would ensure operation within the bounds of existing
accident analyses. There are no accident initiators created or
affected by these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes will 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 SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary and, as such,
are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and
inventory. As part of the RCS pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes
also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant
from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG
is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes and the ability
to remove residual heat from the primary system.
The proposed changes will ensure that the existing margins of
safety are maintained following the replacement of SGs. The changes
to LCO 3.4.17 and TSs 5.5.8 and 5.6.6 impose requirements for SG
tube integrity monitoring, inspection, and reporting that will
ensure that there is no reduction in the ability of the tubes to
perform their RCS pressure boundary and heat transfer functions. The
changes to LCO 3.7.18 ensure the MSLB accident analyses remain
bounding.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction[middot] in a margin of safety.
[[Page 16884]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Corporation,
76 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Jeremy S. Bowen.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 27, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to align St. Lucie TSs with
Combustion Engineering Owners Group TSs language describing required
licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) duties during fuel handling
activities.
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 changes will not result in any significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated, as the proposed TS changes are consistent with Standard
Technical Specifications. Further, not requiring licensed SRO
oversight of fuel handling operations other than core alterations
does not introduce additional risk or a greater potential for
consequences of an accident that has not previously been 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 changes are administrative in nature and do not
involve a physical modification of the plant. No new or different
type of equipment will be installed. The methods for conducting core
alterations and other fuel handling operations will remain the same.
The proposed changes will not introduce new failure modes/effects
that could lead to an accident for which consequences exceed that of
accidents previously analyzed. 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety in that the changes are administrative in nature.
No plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used
to establish safety limits, safety system settings, or the bases for
any limiting conditions for operation. Safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected. Plant operation will continue within the
design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems
that respond to safely shutdown the plant and maintain the plant in
a safe shutdown condition. Consequently, 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 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 Petro, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 6, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate the requirements
that the average power range monitoring (APRM) system ``Upscale'' and
``Inoperative'' scram and control rod withdrawal block functions be
operable in Operational Condition (OPCON) 5, refueling operations.
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 with the NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The APRM system is not an initiator of or a precursor to any
accident or transient. The APRM system monitors the neutron flux
level in the power operating range from approximately one percent to
greater than rated thermal power and initiates automatic protective
actions for postulated at-power reactivity insertion events. Thus,
the proposed changes to the TS operability requirements for the APRM
system will not impact the probability of any previously evaluated
accident.
The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the
proposed amendment. The TSs will continue to require operability of
the APRM system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control
rod withdrawal block functions when the reactor is in the Startup
and Run modes (OPCON 2 and OPCON 1) to provide core protection for
postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power
operating conditions. Thus, the consequences of previously evaluated
at-power reactivity insertion events are not affected by the
proposed amendment.
The proposed elimination of the TS requirements that the APRM
system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control rod
withdrawal block functions be operable when the reactor is in the
Refueling mode (OPCON 5) also does not increase the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated. The possibility of inadvertent
criticality due to a control rod withdrawal error during refueling
is minimized by design features and procedural controls that are not
affected by the proposed amendment. Since the core is designed to
meet shutdown requirements with the highest worth rod withdrawn, the
core remains subcritical even with one rod withdrawn. Any attempt to
withdraw a second rod results in a rod block by the Refueling
Interlocks (RI). In addition, since reactor neutron flux levels
during refueling are below the APRM indicating range, the APRM
system does not provide any meaningful core monitoring or protection
in the refueling operating condition (OPCON 5). The source range
(SRM) and intermediate range (IRM) neutron monitoring systems
provide adequate neutron flux monitoring during refueling and
automatically initiate protective actions (scram or control rod
withdrawal block) when required during refueling.
Additionally, if the infrequently performed TS 3/4.10.3,
``Shutdown Margin Demonstrations,'' is performed in OPCON 5, the
additional controls and restrictions in place during this test are
sufficiently robust even without the RIs when the mode switch is
temporarily placed in Startup. In addition to the OPCON 5 SRM and
IRM protective actions, the SRM RPS [reactor protection system] trip
is made operable, the RWM [rod worth minimizer] is operable and
programmed for the shutdown margin demonstration, use of the ``rod-
out-notch-override'' control is prohibited, and no other core
alterations are allowed. Therefore, during this infrequent
operation, operability of the APRMs is not required as they would
not provide any meaningful core monitoring or protection.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS operability requirements for the
APRM system do not introduce any new accident precursors and do not
involve any physical plant alterations or changes in the methods
governing normal
[[Page 16885]]
plant operation that could initiate a new or different kind of
accident. The proposed amendment does not alter the intended
function of the APRM system and does not affect the ability of the
system to provide core protection for at-power reactivity insertion
events. The other existing TS-required neutron monitoring systems
(SRM and IRM) provide for core monitoring and protection in the
refueling mode (OPCON 5). Additionally, if the infrequently
performed TS 3/4.10.3, ``Shutdown Margin Demonstrations'' is
performed in OPCON 5, the additional controls and restrictions in
place during this test are sufficiently robust even without the RIs
when the mode switch is temporarily placed in ``Startup.''
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary
containment) to perform their design functions during and following
postulated accidents. The proposed amendment does not alter
setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident analyses.
The proposed TS changes to eliminate the requirements that the APRM
system ``Upscale'' and ``Inoperative'' scram and control rod
withdrawal block functions be operable when in OPCON 5 have no
impact on the performance of the fission product barriers. These
APRM functions do not provide any meaningful core monitoring or
protection in the Refueling operating condition, including the
infrequently performed special test TS 3/4.10.3. The other existing
TS required neutron monitoring systems (SRM and IRM) provide for
core monitoring and protection in the refueling mode (OPCON 5). In
the Startup and Run modes the TSs will continue to require
operability of these APRM functions to provide core protection for
postulated reactivity insertion events occurring during power
operating conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
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, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: February 15, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined Licenses Nos.: NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4 by departing from the plant-
specific design control document Tier 2* material by revising reference
document APP-OCS-GEH-320, ``AP1000 Human Factors Engineering Integrated
System Validation Plan'' from Revision D to Revision 2. APP-OCS-GEH-320
is incorporated by reference in the updated final safety analysis
report (UFSAR) as a means to implement the activities associated with
the human factors engineering verification and validation.
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 Integrated System Validation (ISV) provides a comprehensive
human performance-based assessment of the design of the AP1000
Human-System Interface (HSI) resources, based on their realistic
operation within a simulator-driven Main Control Room (MCR). The ISV
is part of the overall AP1000 Human Factors Engineering (HFE)
program. The changes are to the ISV Plan to clarify the scope and
amend the details of the methodology. The ISV Plan is needed to
perform, in the simulator, the scenarios described in the document.
The functions and tasks allocated to plant personnel can still be
accomplished after the proposed changes. The performance of the
tests governed by the ISV Plan provides additional assurances that
the operators can appropriately respond to plant transients. The ISV
Plan does not affect the plant itself. Changing the ISV Plan does
not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g.,
accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods
and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No safety-
related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely
affected. The changes do not involve nor interface with any SSC
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected. Because the changes do not involve any safety-related SSC
or function used to mitigate an accident, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, there is no 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 changes to the ISV Plan affect the testing and validation of
the Main Control Room and Human System Interface using a plant
simulator.
Therefore, the changes do not affect the safety-related
equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed,
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product
barrier. No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design
function or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by
the changes. This activity will not allow for a new fission product
release path, nor will it result in a new fission product barrier
failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result
in significant fuel cladding failures. In addition, the changes do
not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events
that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident than any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes to the ISV Plan affect the testing and validation of
the Main Control Room and Human System Interface using a plant
simulator. Therefore, the changes do not affect the assessments or
the plant itself. These changes do not affect safety-related
equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an accident, nor
does it adversely interface with safety-related equipment or fission
product barriers. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change.
Therefore, there is no 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. M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 19, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
[[Page 16886]]
change the Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.10 to require a unit
shutdown within the TS 3.7.10 Actions instead of entering Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 when both Control Room Emergency
Ventilation System (CREVS) trains are inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 4
due to actions taken as a result of a tornado warning and the
Completion Time of 8 hours for restoration of at least one CREVS train
to OPERABLE status is not met.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify WBN Unit 1 TS 3.7.10 to resolve a
potential conflict in applying the appropriate actions for not
meeting the Required Action and associated Completion Time of
Condition E. These proposed changes are acceptable in the event that
both CREVS trains are inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 4 due to
actions taken as a result of a tornado warning and the Completion
Time of 8 hours for restoration of at least one CREVS train to
OPERABLE status is not met because the requirements to shutdown the
unit to Mode 3 and Mode 5 are similar to the current requirements,
the required Completion Times are 1 hour less than the existing LCO
3.0.3 Completion Times that currently apply, and do not impact the
design and operation of the CREVS, or the ultimate Actions required
to be taken by TS 3.7.10 upon inoperability of the CREVS in MODE 1,
2, 3, or 4 due to actions taken as a result of a tornado warning.
The proposed changes do not (1) require physical changes to plant
systems, structures, or components; (2) prevent the safety function
of any safety-related system, structure, or component during a
design basis event; (3) alter, degrade, or prevent action described
or assumed in any accident described in the WBN Unit 1 UFSAR from
being performed since the safety-related systems, structures, or
components are not modified; (4) alter any assumptions previously
made in evaluating radiological consequences; or (5) affect the
integrity of any fission product barrier.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify WBN Unit 1 TS 3.7.10 to resolve a
potential conflict in applying the appropriate, actions for not
meeting the Required Action and associated Completion Time of
Condition E. These proposed changes are acceptable in the event that
both CREVS trains are inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 4 due to
actions taken as a result of a tornado warning and the Completion
Time of 8 hours for restoration of at least one CREVS train to
OPERABLE status is not met because the requirements to shutdown the
unit to Mode 3 and Mode 5 are similar to the current requirements,
the required Completion Times are 1 hour less than the existing LCO
3.0.3 Completion Times that currently apply, and do not impact the
design and operation of the CREVS, or the ultimate Actions required
to be taken by TS 3.7.10 upon inoperability of the CREVS in MODE 1,
2, 3, or 4 due to actions taken as a result of a tornado warning.
The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident causal
mechanisms, since no physical changes are being made to the plant,
nor do they impact any plant systems that are potential accident
initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify WBN Unit 1 TS 3.7.10 to resolve a
potential conflict in applying the appropriate actions for not
meeting the Required Action and associated Completion Time of
Condition E. These proposed changes are acceptable in the event that
both CREVS trains are inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 4 due to
actions taken as a result of a tornado warning and the Completion
Time of 8 hours for restoration of at least one CREVS train to
OPERABLE status is not met because the requirements to shutdown the
unit to Mode 3 and Mode 5 are similar to the current requirements,
the required Completion Times are 1 hour less than the existing LCO
3.0.3 Completion Times that currently apply, and do not impact the
design and operation of the CREVS, or the ultimate Actions required
to be taken by TS 3.7.10 upon inoperability of the CREVS in MODE 1,
2, 3, or 4 due to actions taken as a result of a tornado warning. As
such, there is no impact on the safety analysis for the CREVS. The
proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, including
instrument set points, that is the basis of the assumptions
contained in the safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined 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.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, 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's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by
email to [email protected].
[[Page 16887]]
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: March 6, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated August 29, 2012, September 21, 2012, November 29,
2012, and January 22, 2013.
Brief Description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b by replacing AREVA Topical Report ANF-
524(P)(A), ANF Critical Power Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors
with AREVA Topical Report ANP-I 0307PA, Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety
Limit Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors, June 2011, in the list of
analytical methods that have been reviewed and approved by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for determining core operating limits,
(2) revise TS 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' by
incorporating revised Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) values, and (3) revise the license condition in Appendix B,
``Additional Conditions,'' of the operating licenses regarding an
alternate method for evaluating SLMCPR values.
Date of issuance: March 1, 2013.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented prior to the
startup from the 2014 Unit 1 refueling outage for Unit 1 changes, and
prior to the startup from the 2013 Unit 2 refueling outage for Unit 2
changes.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--262 and Unit 2--290.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
change the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2012 (77 FR
39524). The supplements dated August 29, 2012, September 21, 2012,
November 29, 2012, and January 22, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 1, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-261, H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of application for amendment: August 6, 2012.
Brief Description of amendment: The amendment allows a delay time
for entering a supported system Technical Specification (TS) when the
inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber, if risk is
assessed and managed consistent with the program in place for complying
with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.0.8 is added to the TS to provide this allowance and
define the requirements and limitations for its use.
This change was proposed by the industry's Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-372, Revision 4. The NRC staff
issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on
November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68412), on possible amendments concerning
TSTF-372, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the consolidated line
item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of
availability of the models for referencing in license amendment
applications in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252).
Date of issuance: February 26, 2013.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 232.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment changed
the license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 16, 2012 (77 FR
63347).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related to diesel fuel oil testing
consistent with NUREG-1432, Rev. 3.1, ``Standard Technical
Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants,'' December 1, 1995, and
NRC approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) TSTF-374,
``Revision to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for Diesel Fuel Oil,''
Revision 0.
Date of issuance: March 5, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 120 days. Amendment No.: 313.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR
35072). The supplemental letter dated May 7, 2012, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: August 14, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated October 25, November 14, and December 13, 2012, and
February 15, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank,'' to permit non-
seismically qualified piping of the Spent Fuel Pool purification system
to be connected to the Refueling Water Storage Tank seismic piping
under administrative controls for a limited period of time in order to
purify the contents of the Refueling Water Storage Tank.
Date of issuance: February 22, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 250.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 16, 2012 (77 FR
63350). The letters dated October 25, November 14, and December 13,
2012, and February 15, 2013, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 16888]]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: February 28, 2012, supplemented
by letters dated September 6, 2012, November 7, 2012, November 29,
2012, February 21, 2013 and February 25, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the PNP TSs
to support the replacement of the Region I main spent fuel (SFP)
storage racks and the storage racks in the north tilt pit portion of
the SFP, with new neutron absorber Metamic-equipped racks. The
replacement of the SFP storage racks will allow recovery of the
currently unusable storage locations in the SFP.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 250.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR
33246). The supplemental letters dated September 6, 2012, November 7,
2012, November 29, 2012, February 21, 2013 and February 25, 2013,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-374, LaSalle County
Station, Unit 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: October 11, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated January 17, February 20, and February 26,
2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment request proposed
changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) to revise Section 2.1.1,
``Reactor Core SLs,'' minimum critical power ratio safety limit (MCPR
SL) from >= 1.11 to >= 1.14 for two-loop recirculation operation and
from >= 1.12 to >=1.17 for a single-loop recirculation operation.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
after Cycle 14 is completed and prior to the operation of Cycle 15.
Amendment No.: 192.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-18: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 5, 2012 (77 FR
66489).
The January 17, February 20, and February 26, 2013, supplements
contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's
initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated March 30, September 10 and 28, 2012, and January 3, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the curves in
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System]
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to replace the 28 Effective
Full Power Years (EFPY) restriction in TS Figures 3.4.9-1, 3.4.9-2, and
3.4.9-3 and the minimum temperature in Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.4.9.5, SR 3.4.9.6, and SR 3.4.9.7. The amendment would include a set
of updated P/T curves for pressure test, core not critical, and core
critical conditions for 32 EFPY based on a fluence evaluation performed
using NRC-approved fluence methodology. The new curves would show a
shift of minimum operating temperature which allows the bolt-up and
minimum temperatures specified for SR 3.4.9.5, SR 3.4.9.6, and SR
3.4.9.7 to be changed from 80 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to
70[emsp14][deg]F.
Date of issuance: February 22, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 245.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 6, 2012 (77 FR
13372). The supplemental letters dated March 30, September 10 and 28,
2012, and January 3, 2013, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: January 20, 2012, as
supplemented on December 7, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the MNGP
Technical Specifications (TS) Section 1.0, ``Definitions,'' Section
3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature (P-T)
Limits,'' and Section 5.6, ``Administrative Controls.'' The amendment
revises the P-T limits based on a methodology documented in the SIR-05-
044-A report, ``Pressure-Temperature Limits Report [PTLR] Methodology
for Boiling Water Reactors,'' and relocates the revised P-T limits from
the TS to the MNGP PTLR.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2013.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days after
start-up from the 2013 Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.: 172.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revises
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR
22815). The licensee's December 7, 2012, supplemental letter did not
change the scope of the original 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 February 27, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated October 1, 2012, and January 22, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to establish the limiting condition for operation
(LCO)
[[Page 16889]]
requirements for the reactor protective system (RPS) actuation circuits
in TS 2.15, ``Instrumentation and Control Systems.'' Specifically, the
TS changes renumbered LCOs 2.15(1) through 2.15(4) to 2.15.1(1) through
2.15.1(4), renumbered LCO 2.15(5) to LCO 2.15.3 with an associated
Table 2-6, ``Alternate Shutdown and Auxiliary Feedwater Panel
Functions,'' and implemented a new LCO 2.15.2 for the RPS logic and
trip initiation channels. The amendment also revised the TS Table of
Contents to reflect the renumbering and addition of the LCO for the RPS
logic and trip initiation channels and the new Table 2-6.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2013.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 270.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR
47128). The supplemental letters dated October 1, 2012, and January 22,
2013, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated February 28, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: March 1, 2012, as supplemented
by letter dated December 21, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The proposed amendment would make
miscellaneous changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) and Facility
Operating License (FOL) including: (1) Correction of typographical
errors; (2) deletion of historical requirements that have expired; (3)
corrections of errors or omissions from previous license amendment
requests; and (4) updating of components lists to reflect current plant
design.
Date of issuance: February 25, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 193.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment
revised the TSs and the Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 3, 2012 (77 FR
20075). The letter dated December 21, 2012, provided clarifying
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination or expand the application.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas. Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a
departure from the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3
plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* material
incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to
revise the requirements for shear reinforcement spacing in the nuclear
island basemat below the auxiliary building.
Date of issuance: February 26, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 2--1, and Unit 3--1.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2013 (78 FR
5511).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas. Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 18, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a
departure from the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific Design Control
Document (DCD) Tier 2* material incorporated into the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by revising the structural criteria code
for anchoring of headed shear reinforcement bar within the nuclear
island basemat.
Date of issuance: March 1, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 2--2, and Unit 3--2.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2013 (78 FR
6145).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 1, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would depart
from VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD)
Tier 2* material incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) to clarify the requirements for shear reinforcement
spacing in the nuclear island basemat below the auxiliary building. The
proposed change would modify the provisions for maximum spacing of the
shear reinforcement in the basemat below the auxiliary building.
Date of issuance: February 26, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 3--4, and Unit 4--4.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2013 (78 FR
5508).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-06164 Filed 3-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P