[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35058-35066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13689]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0122]
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 (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 May 16, 2013 to May 28, 2013. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31978).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0122. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
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.
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-2013-0122 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly-available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0122.
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-2013-0122 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 you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering 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 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 Section 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
[[Page 35059]]
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 ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' 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 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
[[Page 35060]]
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 1-866 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
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].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS-2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated February 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 1.39, ``Storage Pattern,'' TS 3.9.18,
``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage,'' TS 3.9.19, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage
Patterns,'' TS 5.3.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' TS 5.6.1, ``Criticality,''
and TS 5.6.3, ``Capacity'' for MPS-2, as a result of a new criticality
safety analysis for fuel assembly storage in the MPS-2 fuel storage
racks.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the physical plant,
including the spent fuel pool, spent fuel racks, or fuel handling
equipment. While there will be more regions to consider in the spent
fuel pool, the process of choosing fuel assembly locations will not
change other than the regionalization and burnup curves will be
revised. Also, the process of handling fuel assemblies will not
change. The MPS-2 program for choosing fuel assembly storage
locations, and for fuel handling and assuring that the fuel
assemblies are placed into correct locations will remain in place.
The success of this program in preventing misloading and dropping of
a fuel assembly has been historically demonstrated. Thus, the
probability of a fuel assembly misloading or a fuel assembly drop
will not significantly increase with the proposed change.
Multiple postulated accidents were reviewed for the proposed
change which included several fuel misloading scenarios and a fuel
assembly drop.
The criticality analysis concluded that the limiting accident is
a misloaded fresh fuel assembly. The analysis also concluded that
this accident requires an additional 800 ppm [parts per million] of
soluble boron. The total amount of soluble boron required is the 800
ppm to compensate for the reactivity increase from the fuel assembly
misload, plus 600 ppm for normal conditions, for a total of 1400
ppm, which is the same conclusion as the current analysis. The
current TS require a
[[Page 35061]]
minimum concentration of 1720 ppm soluble boron at all times that
fuel is in the spent fuel pool. The proposed TS will maintain this
soluble boron requirement.
A boron dilution accident was reviewed. There are no changes to
the plant, plant equipment or operations required by the proposed
change. Also, the criticality analysis concluded that the current
soluble boron requirement (> 1720 ppm) bounds the consequences
associated with the proposed change.
Thus, there is no change to consequences of a boron dilution
accident.
In the case of each accident, Keff [k-effective]
continues to be less than the licensing limit of 0.95. Thus, it is
concluded that the consequences of a previously evaluated accident
remains that same.
Since the proposed change reduces the number of fuel assemblies
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses bound the proposed change.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There is no change to the physical plant, including the
equipment and procedures used to handle fuel (or any heavy load)
over fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies are stored in
the storage racks. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and
above the existing postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel
assembly drop onto the racks.
Use of cell blocking devices will no longer be required. The
cell blocking devices are removable, and can be removed from the
spent fuel racks. Fuel storage loading requirements will continue to
be maintained by administrative means. Cell blocking devices are not
considered to be a sufficient barrier to preclude a fuel misload
accident, as they are not permanent. The consequences of such an
accident are the same, whether or not a cell blocker is present. The
MPS-2 spent fuel pool has been analyzed to accommodate a single
misload of the highest enrichment fresh fuel assembly in any region
as well as multiple assembly misloads along the boundary between
regions. Thus, removing the requirement to use cell blocking devices
will not create a new accident over and above the existing
postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel assembly drop onto
the racks.
Reducing the number of fuel assemblies that can be stored in the
fuel storage racks will not create any new or different type of
accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
The licensing requirement for the spent fuel pool is that
Keff remain less than or equal to 0.95 under all
postulated accident conditions (misloaded or dropped fuel assembly,
and boron dilution). These accidents were analyzed for the proposed
change, and the Keff < 0.95 requirement is met in all
cases. In addition, the criticality analysis concluded that, under
normal conditions, the fuel pool Keff will remain less
than 1.0 with 0 ppm boron in the pool.
Since the proposed change reduces the number of fuel assemblies
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses' margin of safety bound the
proposed change.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS-2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 21, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.7--Control Rod Drive Mechanisms
(CRDMs) to provide consistency with the operability requirements of TS
Table 3.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation, when control rod drive
mechanisms are energized and capable of withdrawal for MPS-2.
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:
Criterion 1
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the footnote
in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs, to provide consistency with the operability
requirements of TS Table 3.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation,
when CRDMs are energized and capable of withdrawal. The proposed
change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7 does not modify the physical
design or operation of the plant and does not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change has no impact on the operation of the CRDMs.
In addition, the design basis accident remains unchanged for the
postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included in the
safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the postulated
events remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the physical configuration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or introduce any operating configurations not previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the way any system, structure, or
component (SSC) functions and does not alter the manner in which the
plant is operated. The proposed change does not introduce any new
failure modes and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs, does
not involve a change in the operational limits or physical design of
the plant. The proposed change does not alter the function or
operation of plant equipment or affect the response of that
equipment if it is called upon to operate. The proposed change does
not decrease the scope of equipment currently required to operate or
subject to surveillance testing, nor does the proposed change affect
any instrument setpoints or equipment safety functions. The ability
of operable SSCs to perform their designated safety function is
unaffected by this proposed change. The proposed change does not
reduce the margin of safety since it does not affect the assumptions
in any accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
[[Page 35062]]
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS-2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 3, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification 3.9.16 ``Shielded Cask,'' due to changes to the
minimum decay time for fuel assemblies adjacent to the spent fuel pool
cask laydown area for MPS-2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the physical plant,
including the spent fuel pool, spent fuel racks, or fuel handling
equipment. The change increases the calculated dose consequences for
the limiting radiological event, but the increase is not significant
since the existing value is a minimal fraction of the acceptance
criterion. The revised calculated dose remains a small fraction of
the acceptance criterion.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There is no change to the physical plant, including the
equipment and procedures used to handle fuel (or any heavy load)
over fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies are stored in
the storage racks. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and
above the existing postulated spent fuel cask accidents which have
been evaluated for the proposed change. Reducing the minimum decay
time for fuel assemblies in the vicinity of the spent fuel cask
affects the radiological source term (amount and type of
radioisotopes present in the fuel), but has no influence on the
postulated accident scenario itself.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety. The licensing requirement for the minimum decay
time is that radiological dose criteria are met. The limiting
accident scenario was analyzed for the proposed change, and the dose
criteria continue to be met. Specifically, the calculated dose
consequences for the proposed change are and remain a small fraction
of the acceptance criteria.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments: January 15, 2013, as
supplemented on March 1, 2013, and April 18, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR),'' to allow the use
of two new methodologies for determining RCS pressure and temperature
limits.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or the manner in which the plant is operated and
maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, systems or components from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
There will be no adverse change to normal plant operating
parameters, engineered safety feature actuation setpoints, accident
mitigation capabilities, or accident analysis assumptions or inputs.
The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The proposed
change is consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions
and current plant operating practice. No new accident scenarios,
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as designed.
The change does not result in any event previously deemed incredible
being made credible. The change does not result in adverse
conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety
systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation. The
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered
by the proposed change. There are no new or significant changes to
the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or
consequences. The proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the
plant protective boundaries, will not cause a release of fission
products to the public, nor will it degrade the performance of any
other structures, systems or components important to safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: March 8, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated May 16, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment to the
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-63
[[Page 35063]]
would modify Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.6.2i, ``Diesel
Generator Initiation,'' by revising the existing 4.16kV Power Board
(PB) 102/103 Emergency Bus Undervoltage (Degraded Voltage) Operating
Time value and updating the Set Point heading title. In addition,
subsequent to the issuance of the proposed amendment by U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the NMP1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) Table XV-9, ``Significant Input Parameters to the Loss-Of-
Coolant Accident (LOCA) Analysis,'' would be revised, based on the
issued amendment, to add a note regarding maximum allowable delay time
from initiating signal to pump at rated speed settings, to address the
scenario of degraded grid voltage coincident with a LOCA using the
revised TS Table 3.6.2i operating time. The TS and UFSAR revisions are
being made to resolve the Green non-cited violation (NCV) associated
with the vital bus degraded voltage protection time delay documented in
NRC Inspection Report (IR) 05000220/201101, ``Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station--NRC Unresolved Item Follow-up Inspection Report,'' dated
January 23, 2012 (Reference 1), specifically, NCV05000220/20 11011-01,
``Vital Bus Degraded Voltage Time Delay Not Maintained within LOCA
Analysis Assumptions.''
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 modify the TS by changing the maximum time
delay for degraded voltage from <60 seconds to <=24 seconds. The
proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of
any accident. Analysis was conducted and determined that the
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) will perform its safety
function with a time delay of 60 seconds from event initiation to
core spray pump at rated speed resulting in insignificant
differences in the peak fuel clad temperature (PCT) and maximum
local oxidation (MLO) for both GE11 and GNF2 fuel types in use at
NMP1. Additionally, the PCT and the MLO remain below the 10 CFR
50.46 acceptance criteria of 2200 [deg]F and 17% respectively.
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. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change adds an additional time delay due to voltage
degradation prior to diesel start. The LOCA analysis model is
unchanged. The maximum time delay from event initiation to core
spray pump at rated speed input was changed from 35 to 60 seconds to
model the Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) event coincident with a
sustained degraded voltage in order to determine that the 10 CFR
50.46 acceptance criteria is met for this scenario. 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. Does the proposed amendment 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.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined; and the operability requirements for
equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not
affected. The proposed change modifies the TS by changing the
maximum time delay for degraded voltage from <60 seconds to <=24
seconds. By calculating the PCT and MLO using NRC-approved
methodology for the LOCA coincident with a sustained degraded
voltage, adequate margins of safety relating to fuel cladding
integrity are maintained.
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: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to revise
the MNGP Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage
Criticality,'' and TS 4.3.3, ``Fuel Storage Capacity,'' to support fuel
storage system changes and a revised criticality safety analysis that
addresses both legacy fuel types and new fuel designs.
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 NRC edits in brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change the fuel handling
processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate, or the
SFP [spent fuel pool] cooling and cleanup system. The proposed
amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-
evaluated events and accidents: (1) Fuel handling accident (FHA),
(2) fuel assembly misleading, (3) seismically-induced movement of
spent fuel storage racks, and (4) loss of spent fuel pool cooling.
Whereas fuel handling procedures will not be changed materially
for the new fuel type or the revised criticality methods, the
probability of a FHA is not increased because the implementation of
the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and procedures
to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not increase the probability or occurrence
of a FHA. In that the proposed amendment does not increase the
mechanistic damage to a fuel assembly or the radiological source
term of any fuel assembly, the amendment would not increase the
radiological consequences of a FHA. With regard to the potential
criticality consequences of a dropped assembly coming to rest
adjacent to a storage rack or on top of a storage rack, the results
are bounded by the current analysis involving a potential missing
neutron poison plate in the storage rack. The fuel configuration
caused by a dropped assembly resting on top of loaded storage racks
is inherently bounded by the assembly misloaded in the storage rack
because the misloaded assembly is in closer proximity to other
assemblies along its entire fuel length.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection
and fuel handling procedures. The consequences of a fuel misloading
event (fuel assembly loaded into
[[Page 35064]]
an unapproved location) are not changed because the reactivity
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading
event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of occurrence of a seismic event, which is
considered an Act of God. Also, the consequences of a seismic event
are not changed because the proposed amendment involves no
significant change to the types of material stored in SFP storage
racks or their mass. In this manner, the forcing functions for
seismic excitation and the resulting forces are not changed. Also,
particular to criticality, the supporting criticality analysis takes
no credit for gaps between high-density rack modules so any
seismically-induced movement between high-density racks that puts
them in closer proximity would not result in an unanalyzed condition
with consequences worse than those analyzed. Also, the small
displacement of the high-density rack closest to the fixed location
of the low-density rack will not put those racks in a closer
proximity than that analyzed. In summary, the proposed amendment
will not increase the probability or consequence of a seismic event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because
the changes in fuel criticality limits and introduction of the
ATRIUM 10XM fuel design have no bearing on the systems, structures,
and components involved in initiating such an event. The proposed
amendment does not change the heat load imposed by spent fuel
assemblies nor does it change the flow paths in the spent fuel pool.
Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for the
proposed amendment.
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 amendment involves no new SFP loading
configurations for current and legacy fuel designs of the nuclear
plant. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel
handling processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate,
or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. Further, the new
fuel type does not introduce any incompatible materials to the spent
fuel pool environment.
As such, the proposed changes introduce no new material
interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that could create
the potential for an accident of a new or different type.
Operation with the proposed amendment will not create a new or
different kind of accident because fuel movement will continue to be
controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. There are no
changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage arrays meet these requirements
and criteria with adequate margins. Thus, the proposed storage
arrays cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
[Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.]
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety for criticality. Although the amendment involves
changing the subcriticality acceptance limit for the low-density
storage rack from a value of 0.90 to 0.95, the margin of safety for
subcriticality is not significantly reduced in that the limit is
consistent with that of the other storage racks and the regulation
described by 10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4). The new criticality analysis
confirms that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment
continues to meet the required subcriticality margin.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to reduce
the reactor steam dome pressure specified in MNGP Technical
Specifications (TS) 2.0, ``SAFETY LIMITS.'' Specifically, the reactor
steam dome pressure value specified in TS 2.1.1.1 and TS 2.1.1.2 will
be reduced from the current 785 psig to 686 psig. The requested change
supports resolution of a 10 CFR Part 21 condition concerning a
potential to momentarily violate a reactor core safety limit during a
pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the reactor steam dome pressure in
Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the
use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits
that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The
proposed change is in accordance with an NRC-approved critical power
correlation methodology and, as such, maintains required safety
margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor does it alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and
resultant consequences.
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.
There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures
are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the
change does not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in 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. Evaluation of the 10 CFR Part 21
condition by General Electric determined that there was no decrease
in the safety margin, the Minimum Critical Power Ratio improves
during the transient, and therefore is not a threat to fuel cladding
integrity.
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and
2.1.1.2 is consistent
[[Page 35065]]
with, and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC-approved
critical power correlation, and thus continues to ensure that valid
critical power calculations are performed. No setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
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 NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
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: June 8, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated October 12, 2012, October 22, 2012, and April 24, 2013.
Brief Description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to add a 1-hour soak time to Limiting Conditions
for Operation 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 allowing the control rod drive mechanisms
additional time following substantial rod motion to reach thermal
equilibrium.
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 233.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment changed
the license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR
47126). The supplements dated October 12, 2012, October 22, 2012, and
April 24, 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 May 16, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: March 5, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated May 29, 2012, June 21, 2012, July 6, 2012, July 16,
2012, August 15, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 2,
2013, and March 7, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications to implement a measurement uncertainty
recapture power uprate at the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
(McGuire 1 and 2).
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
for McGuire 1 within 30 days of the completion of the facility's end-
of-cycle 23 refueling outage, currently scheduled for the fall of 2014,
and shall be implemented for McGuire 2 within 30 days of the completion
of the facility's end-of-cycle 22 refueling outage, currently scheduled
for the spring of 2014.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 249.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 15, 2012 (77 FR
28630). The supplements dated May 29, 2012, June 21, 2012, July 6,
2012, July 16, 2012, August 15, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 1,
2012, January 2, 2013, and March 7, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: November 3, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated December 22, 2011, April 4, 2012, May 17,
2012, June 21, 2012, August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012, and April 18,
2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) and Facility
[[Page 35066]]
Operating Licenses (FOLs) to allow the use of neutron absorbing inserts
in the spent fuel pool storage racks for the purpose of criticality
control in the spent fuel pools.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 287 and 290.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR
33247). The letters dated December 22, 2011, April 4, 2012, May 17,
2012, June 21, 2012, August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012, and April 18,
2013, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand
the application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register
notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 21, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.3.5.1-1,
``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' footnote (a)
to require ECCS instrumentation to be operable only when the associated
ECCS subsystems are required to be operable. This proposed change is
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task
Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-275-A, Revision 0.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would add exceptions to the
diesel generator (DG) surveillance requirements (SRs) for TS 3.8.2,
``AC Sources--Shutdown,'' to eliminate the requirement that the DG be
capable of responding to ECCS initiation signals while the ECCS
subsystems are not required to be operable. This proposed change is
consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-300-A, Revision 0.
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 164.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 8, 2013 (78 FR
1270). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-13689 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P