Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 52039-52045 [2010-20694]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Polly A. Penhale, Environmental Officer
at the above address or (703) 292–8030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NSF’s
Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR part
671, requires all U.S. citizens and
entities to obtain a permit for the use or
release of a designated pollutant in
Antarctica, and for the release of waste
in Antarctica. NSF has received a permit
application under this Regulation for
the operation of a temporary amateur
radio camp on Signy Island, Antarctica.
Zodiacs will be used to transport
equipment and personnel to the camp
site. Refueling of these vehicles will
take place only on the ship. The camp
will consist of two Weatherport shelters
(12 x 25 feet): One as a lab or radio
communications center; and the other
for sleeping and storage. The power
generator will have double containment
to prevent any fuel spills. All camp
waste (wrappers, empty container,
disposable items), kitchen waste
(garbage, debris, waste water), and
human waste (solid and liquid) will be
removed and returned to Ushuaia,
Argentina for disposal. All shoes,
clothing, equipment taken ashore will
be cleaned and disinfected prior to
leaving the ship to prevent introduction
of non-indigenous species.
No hazardous domestic products or
wastes (aerosol cans, paints, solvents,
etc.) will be brought ashore. Conditions
of the permit would include
requirements to report on the removal of
materials and any accidental releases,
and management of all waste, including
human waste, in accordance with
Antarctic waste regulations.
Application for the permit is made by:
Ralph Fedor, 2337 Granite View Road,
Waite Park, MN 56387.
Location: Signy Island, South Orkney
Islands.
Dates: January 1, 2010 to February 28,
2011.
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–20923 Filed 8–23–10; 8:45 am]
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
Sunshine Act Meeting
9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
September 14, 2010.
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594.
TIME AND DATE:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
STATUS:
The ONE item is open to the
public.
MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:
8146B
Aircraft Accident Summary Report—
Midair Collision Over Hudson
River, Piper PA–32R–300, N71MC,
and Eurocopter AS350BA, N401LH,
Near Hoboken, New Jersey, August
8, 2009.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
Telephone: (202) 314–6100.
The press and public may enter the
NTSB Conference Center one hour prior
to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by
Friday, September 10, 2010.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi
Bing, (202) 314–6403.
Dated: August 20, 2010.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–21151 Filed 8–20–10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0280]
Biweekly Notice Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from July 29,
2010 to August 11, 2010. The last
biweekly notice was published on
August 10, 2010 (75 FR 48370).
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52039
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this
means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; 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 60day 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.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch
(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and should cite the publication
date and page number of this Federal
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
52040
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
Register notice. Written comments may
also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492–
3446. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://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/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E-
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through EIE, users will be
required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further
information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E–Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E–Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E–Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E–Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E–Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at (866) 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
the presiding officer subsequently
determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E–Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of
the Commission, or the presiding
officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home
addresses, or home phone numbers in
their filings, unless an NRC regulation
or other law requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff at 1–800–397–
4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52041
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) High
Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
Equipment Room Delta Temperature
High Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value
listed in Table 3.3.2–2, Isolation
Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints,
Item 4e, for Limerick Generating Station
(LGS), Units 1 and 2. The Trip Setpoint
and Allowable Values are proposed to
be lowered, which is in the conservative
direction, to reflect a revised analysis
for the HPCI equipment room
temperature following a postulated 25
gallon per minute steam leak. The
revised analysis was performed in
September 2009. LGS Licensee Event
Report number 2009–003–00, ‘‘Both
Isolation Actuation Instrument
Channels Inoperable’’ (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML092990404), submitted on October
26, 2009, provides more details on the
reason for completing the revised
analysis.
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 changes to lower the
Technical Specification (TS) High Pressure
Coolant Injection (HPCI) Equipment Room
Delta Temperature High Isolation Trip
Setpoint from ≤126 degrees [Fahrenheit] F to
≤104 degrees F and lower the corresponding
Allowable Value (AV) from ≤130.5 degrees F
to ≤108.5 degrees F do not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated. A
reanalysis of the steam leak model for HPCI
equipment room has identified that a 25
gallons per minute (gpm) steam leak may not
have been isolated on HPCI equipment room
high differential temperature with the
existing temperature indicating switch
setpoints in all plant conditions. Lowering
the non-conservative TS Trip Setpoint to 104
degrees F will decrease the consequence of
a 25 gpm HPCI steam line leak outside
primary containment within the HPCI room
by ensuring it is isolated. The value of 104
degrees F is set high enough to ensure that
a premature isolation of the HPCI System
following a Loss of Coolant Accident does
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
52042
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
not occur. The environmental qualification of
required equipment in the HPCI rooms is not
affected by the proposed lowered isolation
trip setpoint. The proposed setpoint change
[ensures that a 25 gpm steam leak is isolated
prior to exceeding the integrated mass release
of the bounding analysis] described in the
Limerick Updated Final Safety Analysis
[R]eport (UFSAR) Section 15.6.4, ‘‘Steam
System Piping Break Outside Primary
Containment.’’
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 proposed changes to lower the TS
HPCI Equipment Room Delta Temperature
High Isolation Trip Setpoint from ≤126
degrees F to ≤104 degrees F and lower the
corresponding AV from ≤130.5 degrees F to
≤108.5 degrees F do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. The
proposed changes do not add or remove
equipment. The proposed changes are
limited to an instrument setpoint change to
an existing temperature indicating switch
within the Steam Leak Detection System. The
Steam Leak Detection System is a mitigating
system; changes to its instrumentation
setpoints do not introduce any new accident
initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely
affect the capabilities of any plant structure,
system, or component to perform their safety
function. The physical establishment and
setting of the proposed setpoint of the
accident mitigation instruments will have no
direct impact on the plant’s normal operating
conditions. The instrumentation is normally
in a monitoring mode and does not actively
support normal plant operation. No new
failure modes are being introduced by the
proposed changes and the Steam Leak
Detection System will continue to be
operated in the same manner.
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 to lower the TS
HPCI Equipment Room Delta Temperature
High Isolation Trip Setpoint from ≤126
degrees F to ≤104 degrees F and lower the
corresponding AV from ≤130.5 degrees F to
≤108.5 degrees F do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. The lower
trip setpoint will ensure that a 25 gpm leak
in the HPCI steam line will be isolated on
HPCI equipment room high differential
temperature. The proposed system isolation
TS trip setpoint was selected to provide
equivalent margins that ensure the
effectiveness of the Steam Leak Detection
System isolation system to mitigate the
consequences of an accident without
compromising the operability of the HPCI
System. The proposed trip setpoint and
proposed allowable value range maintain
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
adequate margins between these new values
and the operating range of the HPCI System
in order to prevent the inadvertent actuation
of the Steam Leak Detection System isolation
system and the loss of the HPCI System. The
same difference of 4.5 degrees F between the
existing trip setpoint and AV values and the
proposed trip setpoint and AV values is
being maintained as an allowance for
instrument drift. The trip setpoint and the
AV range is within the specified range of the
instruments and therefore, the accuracy and
drift provides the same margin of safety as
previously assumed.
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: Harold K.
Chernoff.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the
licensee), Docket No. 50–315 and 50–
316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
(CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 22,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specifications,
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.6.5,
regarding containment spray nozzles.
Currently SR 3.6.6.5 requires that the
nozzles be verified to be unobstructed
every 10 years. The licensee proposed to
change the frequency to be event-based,
specifically, ‘‘following maintenance
that could result in nozzle blockage.’’
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff performed
its own analysis, which is presented
below:
(1) Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability of
occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The containment spray system and its
spray nozzles were not identified as accident
initiators in previously evaluated accidents;
thus, the proposed change, which affects
only the surveillance frequency of spray
nozzles, cannot and do not have any effect
on the probability of occurrence of an
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accident. In addition, since no design
function of the containment spray system,
including the nozzles, would be altered by
the proposed change of the surveillance
frequency, the containment spray system will
continue to perform its original design
function, mitigating the consequences of
certain accidents previously evaluated. Thus,
the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated will not be significantly increased.
(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 introduce a
new mode of plant operation and does not
involve physical modification to plant
design. Thus, the proposed change does not
involve the possibility of introducing any
new accident initiators to affect assumptions
made in previously evaluated accidents. The
containment spray system will continue to
function as originally designed and installed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change would only revise
containment spray nozzle surveillance
frequency but will not reduce a margin of
safety because the change has no effect on
any safety analysis methods, scenarios, or
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Based on the above review, it appears
that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the
NRC staff proposes to determine that the
proposed amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro,
Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, Indiana
Michigan Power Company, One Cook
Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
(VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 15,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments request the
adoption of an approved change to the
standard technical specifications (STS)
for Westinghouse Plants (NUREG–1431),
to allow relocation of specific TS
surveillance frequencies to a licenseecontrolled program. The proposed
change is described in Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler, TSTF–425, Revision 3,
‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control—RITSTF Initiative
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
5b.’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML080280275) and was described in the
Notice of Availability published in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR
31996). The proposed changes are
consistent with NRC-approved TSTF–
425, Revision 3. The proposed change
relocates surveillance frequencies to a
licensee-controlled program, the
surveillance frequency control program
(SFCP). This change is applicable to
licensees using probabilistic risk
guidelines contained in NRC-approved
NEI 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 5b, RiskInformed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies,’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML071360456).
The licensee affirmed the
applicability to the VEGP of the model
no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination provided in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR
31996) in its application dated June 15,
2010.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the
specified frequencies for periodic
surveillance requirements to licensee control
under a new Surveillance Frequency Control
Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an
initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and
components required by the Technical
Specifications for which the surveillance
frequencies are relocated are still required to
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for
the surveillance requirements, and be
capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from
utilizing the proposed change. The changes
do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change in
the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not
impose any new or different requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes
are consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions and current plant operating
practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods,
and acceptance criteria for systems,
structures, and components (SSCs), specified
in applicable codes and standards (or
alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the
plant licensing basis (including the final
safety analysis report and bases to TS), since
these are not affected by changes to the
surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance
criteria as described in the plant licensing
basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated
surveillance frequency, SNC will perform a
probabilistic risk evaluation using the
guidance contained in NRC-approved NEI
04–10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS
SFCP. NEI 04–10, Rev. 1 methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines
and methods for evaluating the risk increase
of proposed change to surveillance
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H.
Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30308–2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria J. Kulesa.
Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously
published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice
in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52043
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50–277,
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
(PBAPS), Unit 2, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
May 27, 2010.
Brief description of amendment
request: The proposed amendment
would modify the PBAPS, Unit 2,
Technical Specification Section 2.1.1 to
revise Safety Limit Minimum Critical
Power Ratio values.
Date of publication of individual
notice in Federal Register: July 26,
2010 (FR 75 43574).
Expiration date of individual notice:
August 25, 2010 (public comments) and
September 24, 2010 (hearing requests).
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for A Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
52044
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the PDR
Reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737 or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
July 1, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated May 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip
System (RTS) Instrumentation’’ and TS
1.1, ‘‘Definitions.’’ The amendments
support plant modifications which
would replace the existing source range
and intermediate range excore detector
systems with equivalent neutron
monitoring systems. The new
instrumentation will perform both the
source range and intermediate range
monitoring functions.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 258 and 253.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
35 and NPF–52: Amendments revised
the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in in Federal
Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 10826).
The supplement dated May 20, 2010,
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 August 2, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
October 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments deleted a license condition
located in each of the unit’s Renewed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
Facility Operating Licenses which
restricts the maximum fuel rod average
burnup. Deletion of this condition
would allow the maximum fuel rod
average burnup up to increase.
Date of issuance: August 5, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 254.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments
revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17441).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
September 3, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specification (TS) Section 3.7.10,
‘‘Control Room Area Ventilation System
(CRAVS),’’ to allow movement of
irradiated fuel with only one CRAVS
train OPERABLE.
Date of issuance: August 9, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 260 and 255.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30444).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos.
50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
July 1, 2009, as supplemented by letter
dated May 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip
System (RTS) Instrumentation.’’ The
amendments support plant
modifications which would replace the
existing source range and intermediate
range excore detector systems with
equivalent neutron monitoring systems.
The new instrumentation will perform
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
both the source range and intermediate
range monitoring functions.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 257 and 237.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 10826).
The supplement dated May 20, 2010,
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 August 2, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos.
50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
October 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments deleted a license condition
located in each of the unit’s Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses which
restricts the maximum fuel rod average
burnup. Deletion of this condition
would allow the maximum fuel rod
average burnup up to increase.
Date of issuance: August 5, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 258 and 238.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17441).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2010.
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 (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
August 7, 2008, as supplemented on
May 7, 2009, and January 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
August 7, 2008, submittal contained
several areas of review that have been
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 24, 2010 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
dispositioned as separate amendment
requests. The amendments associated
with this notice revise the PBAPS Units
2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to
incorporate Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 439,
‘‘Elimination of Second Completion
Times Limiting Time From Discovery of
Failure To Meet an LCO [Limiting
Condition for Operation],’’ Revision 2.
The TS amendments modify Section 1.3
of the PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 TSs to alter
the discussion contained in Example
1.3–3 to eliminate second completion
times. Consistent with this change, the
second completion times associated
with TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Standby Liquid Control
(SLC) System,’’ required actions A.2 and
B.1, TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’
required action A.3, and TS 3.8.7,
‘‘Distribution Systems—Operating,’’
required actions C.1 and D.1 are also
deleted.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 277 and 280.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: Amendments
revised the License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20744).
The supplements dated May 7, 2009,
and January 19, 2010, clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the initial proposed
no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments:
December 14, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated April 23, June 11, and July
2, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments approved the licensee’s
request to incorporate a revision to the
Final Safety Analyses Report Update
Section 3.7.1.3 to allow for the use of a
damping value of 5 percent of the
critical damping value for the structural
dynamic qualification of the control rod
drive mechanism pressure housings on
the replacement reactor vessel head for
the design earthquake, the double
design earthquake, the Hosgri
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:00 Aug 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
earthquake, and the loss-of-coolant
accident loading conditions.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–207; Unit
2–209.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
80 and DPR–82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 23, 2010 (75 FR
13790). The supplemental letters dated
April 23, June 11, and July 2, 2010,
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 July 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day
of August 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–20694 Filed 8–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0281; Docket No. STN 50–530]
Arizona Public Service Company, Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
3; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of a temporary exemption from
the requirements of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, part 50 (10 CFR
50), section 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria
for emergency core cooling systems for
light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ and
10 CFR part 50, appendix K, ‘‘ECCS
Evaluation Models,’’ for Facility
Operating License No. NPF–74, issued
to Arizona Public Service Company
(APS, the licensee), for operation of Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(PVNGS), Unit 3, located in Maricopa
County, Arizona. Therefore, as required
by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52045
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would permit
the use of fuel rods with Optimized
ZIRLOTM cladding to be inserted into
PVNGS, Unit 3’s core for Operating
Cycles 16, 17, and 18. Since the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.46,
specifically, and 10 CFR part 50,
appendix K, implicitly, refer to the use
of zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, a
temporary exemption is required to
allow the use of fuel rods clad with an
advanced zirconium-based alloy that is
neither zircaloy nor ZIRLO. The
temporary exemption would allow up to
eight lead fuel assemblies (LFAs)
manufactured by Westinghouse with
fuel rods clad with Optimized ZIRLOTM
to be inserted into the PVNGS, Unit 3
core during the fall 2010 refueling
outage. The temporary exemption
would allow the LFAs to be used for up
to three operating cycles (Cycles 16, 17,
and 18).
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 2, 2009 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML093160596), as supplemented by
letter dated May 12, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML101410262).
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed temporary exemption is
needed by APS, as explained in its
application dated November 2, 2009, in
order ‘‘to evaluate cladding for future
fuel assemblies that may need to be of
a more robust design than current fuel
assemblies to allow for possible higher
duty and/or extended burnup.’’ The
regulations specify standards and
acceptance criteria only for fuel rods
clad with zircaloy or ZIRLO. Consistent
with 10 CFR 50.46, a temporary
exemption is required to use fuel rods
clad with an advanced alloy that is not
zircaloy or ZIRLO. Therefore, the
licensee needs a temporary exemption
to insert up to eight LFAs containing
Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding material
into the PVNGS Unit 3 core for up to
three cycles of operation.
Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action:
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the proposed exemption will not
present any undue risk to the public
health and safety. The NRC-approved
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
(Westinghouse) topical reports, WCAP–
16500–P–A Revision 0, ‘‘CE
[Combustion Engineering] 16x16 Next
E:\FR\FM\24AUN1.SGM
24AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52039-52045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20694]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0280]
Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from July 29, 2010 to August 11, 2010. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 10, 2010 (75 FR 48370).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; 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.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal
[[Page 52040]]
Register notice. Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-
492-3446. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at https://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
[[Page 52041]]
submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance
with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-
Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due
date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps
the document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming
receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail
notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the
Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the
filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately.
Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or
representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate
before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
the Technical Specification (TS) High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
Equipment Room Delta Temperature High Trip Setpoint and Allowable Value
listed in Table 3.3.2-2, Isolation Actuation Instrumentation Setpoints,
Item 4e, for Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2. The Trip
Setpoint and Allowable Values are proposed to be lowered, which is in
the conservative direction, to reflect a revised analysis for the HPCI
equipment room temperature following a postulated 25 gallon per minute
steam leak. The revised analysis was performed in September 2009. LGS
Licensee Event Report number 2009-003-00, ``Both Isolation Actuation
Instrument Channels Inoperable'' (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML092990404), submitted on
October 26, 2009, provides more details on the reason for completing
the revised analysis.
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 changes to lower the Technical Specification (TS)
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) Equipment Room Delta
Temperature High Isolation Trip Setpoint from <=126 degrees
[Fahrenheit] F to <=104 degrees F and lower the corresponding
Allowable Value (AV) from <=130.5 degrees F to <=108.5 degrees F do
not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A reanalysis of the steam leak model
for HPCI equipment room has identified that a 25 gallons per minute
(gpm) steam leak may not have been isolated on HPCI equipment room
high differential temperature with the existing temperature
indicating switch setpoints in all plant conditions. Lowering the
non-conservative TS Trip Setpoint to 104 degrees F will decrease the
consequence of a 25 gpm HPCI steam line leak outside primary
containment within the HPCI room by ensuring it is isolated. The
value of 104 degrees F is set high enough to ensure that a premature
isolation of the HPCI System following a Loss of Coolant Accident
does
[[Page 52042]]
not occur. The environmental qualification of required equipment in
the HPCI rooms is not affected by the proposed lowered isolation
trip setpoint. The proposed setpoint change [ensures that a 25 gpm
steam leak is isolated prior to exceeding the integrated mass
release of the bounding analysis] described in the Limerick Updated
Final Safety Analysis [R]eport (UFSAR) Section 15.6.4, ``Steam
System Piping Break Outside Primary Containment.''
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 proposed changes to lower the TS HPCI Equipment Room Delta
Temperature High Isolation Trip Setpoint from <=126 degrees F to
<=104 degrees F and lower the corresponding AV from <=130.5 degrees
F to <=108.5 degrees F do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not add or remove equipment. The proposed
changes are limited to an instrument setpoint change to an existing
temperature indicating switch within the Steam Leak Detection
System. The Steam Leak Detection System is a mitigating system;
changes to its instrumentation setpoints do not introduce any new
accident initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform
their safety function. The physical establishment and setting of the
proposed setpoint of the accident mitigation instruments will have
no direct impact on the plant's normal operating conditions. The
instrumentation is normally in a monitoring mode and does not
actively support normal plant operation. No new failure modes are
being introduced by the proposed changes and the Steam Leak
Detection System will continue to be operated in the same manner.
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 to lower the TS HPCI Equipment Room Delta
Temperature High Isolation Trip Setpoint from <=126 degrees F to
<=104 degrees F and lower the corresponding AV from <=130.5 degrees
F to <=108.5 degrees F do not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The lower trip setpoint will ensure that a 25 gpm
leak in the HPCI steam line will be isolated on HPCI equipment room
high differential temperature. The proposed system isolation TS trip
setpoint was selected to provide equivalent margins that ensure the
effectiveness of the Steam Leak Detection System isolation system to
mitigate the consequences of an accident without compromising the
operability of the HPCI System. The proposed trip setpoint and
proposed allowable value range maintain adequate margins between
these new values and the operating range of the HPCI System in order
to prevent the inadvertent actuation of the Steam Leak Detection
System isolation system and the loss of the HPCI System. The same
difference of 4.5 degrees F between the existing trip setpoint and
AV values and the proposed trip setpoint and AV values is being
maintained as an allowance for instrument drift. The trip setpoint
and the AV range is within the specified range of the instruments
and therefore, the accuracy and drift provides the same margin of
safety as previously assumed.
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: Harold K. Chernoff.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), Docket No. 50-315 and
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien
County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specifications, Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.6.6.5, regarding containment spray nozzles. Currently SR 3.6.6.5
requires that the nozzles be verified to be unobstructed every 10
years. The licensee proposed to change the frequency to be event-based,
specifically, ``following maintenance that could result in nozzle
blockage.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, which is
presented below:
(1) Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The containment spray system and its spray nozzles were not
identified as accident initiators in previously evaluated accidents;
thus, the proposed change, which affects only the surveillance
frequency of spray nozzles, cannot and do not have any effect on the
probability of occurrence of an accident. In addition, since no
design function of the containment spray system, including the
nozzles, would be altered by the proposed change of the surveillance
frequency, the containment spray system will continue to perform its
original design function, mitigating the consequences of certain
accidents previously evaluated. Thus, the consequences of accidents
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased.
(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 introduce a new mode of plant
operation and does not involve physical modification to plant
design. Thus, the proposed change does not involve the possibility
of introducing any new accident initiators to affect assumptions
made in previously evaluated accidents. The containment spray system
will continue to function as originally designed and installed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change would only revise containment spray nozzle
surveillance frequency but will not reduce a margin of safety
because the change has no effect on any safety analysis methods,
scenarios, or assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above review, it appears that the three standards of
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-424 and
50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 15, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments request
the adoption of an approved change to the standard technical
specifications (STS) for Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431), to allow
relocation of specific TS surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program. The proposed change is described in Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3,
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF
Initiative
[[Page 52043]]
5b.'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML080280275) and was described in the Notice
of Availability published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74
FR 31996). The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-
425, Revision 3. The proposed change relocates surveillance frequencies
to a licensee-controlled program, the surveillance frequency control
program (SFCP). This change is applicable to licensees using
probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI 04-10,
``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed
Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies,'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML071360456).
The licensee affirmed the applicability to the VEGP of the model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination provided in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996) in its application dated
June 15, 2010.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
Technical Specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, SNC will
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained
in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP.
NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 methodology provides reasonable acceptance
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed
change to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308-2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria J. Kulesa.
Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-
277, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: May 27, 2010.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would modify the PBAPS, Unit 2, Technical Specification Section 2.1.1
to revise Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio values.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July
26, 2010 (FR 75 43574).
Expiration date of individual notice: August 25, 2010 (public
comments) and September 24, 2010 (hearing requests).
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
[[Page 52044]]
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: July 1, 2009, as supplemented
by letter dated May 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Instrumentation'' and TS 1.1, ``Definitions.'' The amendments support
plant modifications which would replace the existing source range and
intermediate range excore detector systems with equivalent neutron
monitoring systems. The new instrumentation will perform both the
source range and intermediate range monitoring functions.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 258 and 253.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10826). The supplement dated May 20, 2010, 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 August 2, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted a license
condition located in each of the unit's Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses which restricts the maximum fuel rod average burnup. Deletion
of this condition would allow the maximum fuel rod average burnup up to
increase.
Date of issuance: August 5, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 254.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR
17441).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: September 3, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.7.10, ``Control Room Area
Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' to allow movement of irradiated fuel with
only one CRAVS train OPERABLE.
Date of issuance: August 9, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 260 and 255.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR
30444).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 9, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: July 1, 2009, as supplemented
by letter dated May 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Instrumentation.'' The amendments support plant modifications which
would replace the existing source range and intermediate range excore
detector systems with equivalent neutron monitoring systems. The new
instrumentation will perform both the source range and intermediate
range monitoring functions.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 257 and 237.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10826). The supplement dated May 20, 2010, 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 August 2, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 29, 2009.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted a license
condition located in each of the unit's Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses which restricts the maximum fuel rod average burnup. Deletion
of this condition would allow the maximum fuel rod average burnup up to
increase.
Date of issuance: August 5, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 258 and 238.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR
17441).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 5, 2010.
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 (PBAPS), Units 2 and
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: August 7, 2008, as supplemented
on May 7, 2009, and January 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The August 7, 2008, submittal
contained several areas of review that have been
[[Page 52045]]
dispositioned as separate amendment requests. The amendments associated
with this notice revise the PBAPS Units 2 and 3 Technical
Specifications (TS) to incorporate Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler 439, ``Elimination of Second Completion Times Limiting
Time From Discovery of Failure To Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition for
Operation],'' Revision 2. The TS amendments modify Section 1.3 of the
PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 TSs to alter the discussion contained in Example
1.3-3 to eliminate second completion times. Consistent with this
change, the second completion times associated with TS 3.1.7, ``Standby
Liquid Control (SLC) System,'' required actions A.2 and B.1, TS 3.8.1,
``AC Sources--Operating,'' required action A.3, and TS 3.8.7,
``Distribution Systems--Operating,'' required actions C.1 and D.1 are
also deleted.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 277 and 280.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2009 (74 FR
20744).
The supplements dated May 7, 2009, and January 19, 2010, clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: December 14, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated April 23, June 11, and July 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved the
licensee's request to incorporate a revision to the Final Safety
Analyses Report Update Section 3.7.1.3 to allow for the use of a
damping value of 5 percent of the critical damping value for the
structural dynamic qualification of the control rod drive mechanism
pressure housings on the replacement reactor vessel head for the design
earthquake, the double design earthquake, the Hosgri earthquake, and
the loss-of-coolant accident loading conditions.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-207; Unit 2-209.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (75 FR
13790). The supplemental letters dated April 23, June 11, and July 2,
2010, 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 July 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of August 2010.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Nelson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-20694 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P