Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 64359-64366 [2010-26152]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
be notified of the disqualification, to
request and receive the waiver packet,
to obtain employer support and
complete the waiver request, to do any
follow-up testing, to return the waiver
request to the contractor plus any
follow-up information, for the
contractor to get the completed packet
to the National Science Foundation, and
for NSF to make and promulgate a
decision.
Respondents: All individuals
deploying to the Antarctic under the
auspices of the United States Antarctic
Program and certain Arctic areas must
complete these forms. There are
approximately 3,000 submissions per
year, with a small percentage (c.3%)
under the age of 40 who provide annual
submissions but with less information.
Estimated Number of Responses per
Form: Responses range from 2 to
approximately 238 responses.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on
Respondents: 28,728 hours; fewer if the
individual has previously deployed and
saved his or her prior year’s data for
future use.
Frequency of Responses: Physical
qualifications are valid for 12 months.
Individuals must complete the forms
annually or not earlier than six months
prior to their anticipated deployment
date, if they are infrequent travelers.
Depending on individual medical status
some persons may require additional
laboratory results to be current within
two to six-weeks of anticipated
deployment.
Comments: Comments are invited on
(a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information on respondents,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques, or other forms of
information technology.
Dated: October 14, 2010.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2010–26249 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0327]
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 September
23, 2010 to October 6, 2010. The last
biweekly notice was published on
October 5, 2010, (75 FR 61521).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means
that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; 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
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64359
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
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
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
64360
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 EFiling 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://
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 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
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
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
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
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,
Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529,
and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: August
27, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
methodology in the feedwater line break
with loss of offsite power and single
failure event (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis
summarized in the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report. The revision would
change the credited operator action time
to 20 minutes from 30 minutes to
control the pressurizer level.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited
operator action time to 20 minutes from 30
minutes does not change the probability of a
FWLB/LOP/SF event as the operator actions
are credited after the start of the event.
This change in operator action time does
not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors, the ability of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64361
consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits, or
radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited
operator action time to 20 minutes from 30
minutes does not involve any design or
physical changes to the facility or any SSC
of that facility. The proposed change does not
create any new failure modes or adversely
affect the interaction between any structure,
system or component.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited
operator action time to 20 minutes from 30
minutes does not alter the manner in which
safety limits or limiting safety system settings
are determined. No changes to instrument/
system actuation setpoints are involved. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
impacted by this change and the proposed
change will not permit plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The
assumed 20 minutes for operator action is
consistent with Industry and NRC guidance.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on that
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the request
for amendments involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G.
Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O.
Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix,
Arizona 85072–2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Florida Power and Light Company
(FPL), Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251,
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 5,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.1
Fuel Storage—Criticality, to include
new spent fuel storage patterns that
account for both the increase in fuel
maximum enrichment from 4.5 weight
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
64362
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
percentage (wt%) U–235 to 5.0 wt% U–
235 and the impact on the fuel of higher
power operation proposed under the
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) project.
Although the fuel storage has been
analyzed at the higher fuel enrichment
in the new criticality analysis, the fuel
enrichment limit of 4.5 wt% U–235
specified in TS 5.5.1 will not be
changed under this license amendment
request. The proposed TS changes and
a new supporting criticality analysis are
being submitted to revise the current
licensing basis analysis for both new
fuel and spent fuel pool storage.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
No. The proposed amendments do not
change or modify the fuel, fuel handling
processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel
assemblies that may be stored in the spent
fuel pool (SFP), decay heat generation rate,
or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup
system. The proposed amendment was
evaluated for impact on the following
previously evaluated events and accidents:
a. A fuel handling accident (FHA),
b. A cask drop accident,
c. A fuel mispositioning event,
d. A spent fuel pool boron dilution event,
e. A seismic event, and
f. A loss of spent fuel pool cooling event.
Although the proposed amendment will
require increased handling of the fuel, the
probability of a FHA is not significantly
increased because the implementation of the
proposed amendment will employ the same
equipment and process to handle fuel
assemblies that is currently used. Also, tests
have confirmed that the Metamic inserts can
be installed and removed without damaging
the host fuel assemblies. The FHA
radiological dose consequences associated
with fuel enrichment at this level were
addressed in LAR [license amendment
request] 196 on Alternative Source Term
implementation at EPU conditions and
remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed
amendments do not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of a FHA.
The proposed amendments do not increase
the probability of dropping a fuel transfer
cask because they do not introduce any new
heavy loads to the SFP and do not affect
heavy load handling processes. Also, the
insertion of Metamic rack inserts does not
increase the consequences of the cask drop
accident because the radiological source term
of that accident is developed from a nonmechanistically derived quantity of damaged
fuel stored in the spent fuel pool. Therefore,
the proposed amendments do not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of a cask drop accident.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of a fuel mispositioning event because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by
approved fuel handling procedures. These
procedures continue to require identification
of the initial and target locations for each fuel
assembly that is moved. The consequences of
a fuel mispositioning event are not changed
because the reactivity analysis demonstrates
that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the
worst-case fuel mispositioning event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of a boron dilution event because the systems
and events that could affect spent fuel pool
soluble boron are unchanged. The
consequences of a boron dilution event are
unchanged because the proposed amendment
reduces the soluble boron requirement below
the currently required value and the
maximum possible water volume displaced
by the inserts is an insignificant fraction of
the total spent fuel pool water volume.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of a seismic event. The consequences of a
seismic event are not significantly increased
because the forcing functions for seismic
excitation are not increased and because the
mass of storage racks with Metamic inserts is
not appreciably increased. Seismic analyses
demonstrate adequate stress levels in the
storage racks when inserts are installed.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of a loss of SFP cooling event because the
systems and events that could affect SFP
cooling are unchanged. The consequences are
not significantly increased because there are
no changes in the SFP heat load or SFP
cooling systems, structures or components.
Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate
that the current design requirements and
criteria continue to be met with the Metamic
inserts installed.
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?
No. The proposed amendments do not
change or modify the fuel, fuel handling
processes, fuel racks, number of fuel
assemblies that may be stored in the pool,
decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel
pool cooling and cleanup system. The effects
of operating with the proposed amendment
are listed below. The proposed amendments
were evaluated for the potential of each effect
to create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident:
a. Addition of inserts to the fuel storage
racks,
b. New storage patterns,
c. Additional weight from the inserts,
d. Insert movement above fuel, and
e. Displacement of fuel pool water by the
inserts.
Each insert will be placed between a fuel
assembly and the storage cell wall, taking up
some of the space available on two sides of
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the fuel assembly. Tests confirm that the
insert can be installed and removed without
damaging the fuel assembly. Analyses
demonstrate that the presence of the inserts
does not adversely affect spent fuel cooling,
seismic capability, or subcriticality. The
aluminum (alloy 6061) and boron carbide
materials of construction have been shown to
be compatible with nuclear fuel, storage
racks and spent fuel pool environments, and
generate no adverse material interactions.
Therefore, placing the inserts into the spent
fuel pool storage racks cannot cause a new
or different kind of accident.
Operation with the proposed fuel storage
patterns will not create a new or different
kind of accident because fuel movement will
continue to be controlled by approved fuel
handling procedures. These procedures
continue to require identification of the
initial and target locations for each fuel
assembly that is moved. There are no changes
in the criteria or design requirements
pertaining to fuel storage safety, including
subcriticality requirements, and analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage
patterns meet these requirements and criteria
with adequate margins. Therefore, the
proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new
or different kind of accident.
Operation with the added weight of the
Metamic inserts will not create a new or
different accident. The net effect of the
adding the maximum number of inserts is to
add less than one percent to the weight of the
loaded racks. Furthermore, the analyses of
the racks with Metamic inserts installed
demonstrate that the stress levels in the rack
modules continue to be considerably less
than allowable stress limits. Therefore, the
added weight from the inserts cannot cause
a new or different kind of accident.
Operation with insert movement above
stored fuel will not create a new or different
kind of accident. The insert with its handling
tool weighs considerably less than the weight
of a single fuel assembly. Single fuel
assemblies are routinely moved safely over
fuel assemblies and the same level of safety
in design and operation will be maintained
when moving the inserts. Furthermore, the
effect of a dropped insert to block the top of
a storage cell has been evaluated in thermalhydraulic analyses. Therefore, the movement
of inserts cannot cause a new or different
kind of accident.
Whereas the installed rack inserts will
displace a very small fraction of the fuel pool
water volume and impose a very small
reduction in operator response time to
previously-evaluated SFP accidents, the
reduction will not promote a new or different
kind of accident. Also, displacement of water
along two sides of a stored fuel assembly may
have some local reduction in the peripheral
cooling flow; however, this effect would be
small compared to the flow induced through
the fuel assembly and would in no way
promote a new or different kind of accident.
The accidents and events previously
analyzed and presented in the Boraflex
Remedy and Alternative Source Term LARs
remain bounding. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in the margin of
safety?
No. The proposed change was evaluated
for its effect on current margins of safety as
they relate to criticality, structural integrity,
and spent fuel heat removal capability.
The margin of safety for subcriticality
required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4) is unchanged.
New criticality analysis confirms that
operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment continues to meet the required
subcriticality margins.
The structural evaluations for the racks and
spent fuel pool with Metamic inserts
installed show that the rack and spent fuel
pool are unimpaired by loading combinations
during seismic motion, and there is no
adverse seismic-induced interaction between
the rack and Metamic inserts.
The proposed change does not affect spent
fuel heat generation or the spent fuel pool
cooling systems. A conservative analysis
indicates that the design basis requirements
and criteria for spent fuel cooling continue to
be met with the Metamic inserts in place, and
displacing coolant. Thermal hydraulic
analysis of the local effects of an installed
rack insert blocking peripheral flow show a
small increase in local water and fuel clad
temperatures, but will remain within
acceptable limits including no departure
from nucleate boiling.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
Based on the above discussion, FPL has
determined that the proposed change does
not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross,
Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O.
Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408–
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
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
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,
Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529,
and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and
3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment:
September 28, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated June 24 and September
3 and 24, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments revised Required Action
A.1 of Technical Specification 3.8.7,
‘‘Inverters—Operating,’’ for the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units
1, 2, and 3, by extending the Completion
Time for restoration of an inoperable
vital alternating current inverter from 24
hours to 7 days.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64363
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1—180; Unit
2—180; Unit 3—180.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The
amendment revised the Operating
Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR
62833). The supplemental letters dated
June 24 and September 3 and 24, 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 September 29,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.,
Docket No. 50–414, Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, York County, South
Carolina
Date of application for amendment:
April 28, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated September 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to exclude
portions of the Steam Generator (SG)
tube from periodic SG tube inspections
and plugging or repair. In addition,
reporting requirement changes were
made to TS 5.6.8.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to requiring the SGs to be operable
at the completion of the End of Cycle 17
Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.: 257.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–52: Amendment revised the
license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39977).
The supplement dated September 9,
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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 27,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
64364
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County,
New York
Date of application for amendment:
April 21, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated July 28 and September 2,
2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised James A. FitzPatrick
Technical Specification (TS) 2.0, ‘‘Safety
Limits (SLs).’’ Specifically, TS 2.1.1.2
replaced the listed safety limit
minimum critical power ratio values of
1.07 for two recirculation loop operation
and 1.09 for single recirculation loop
operation with new values of 1.08 and
1.11, respectively.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 299.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–59: The amendment revised
the License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33841).
The supplements dated July 28 and
September 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 NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 27,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generating Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean
County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment:
October 30, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated April 16, 2010, and August
31, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the Oyster Creek
Technical Specifications to relocate a
number of Surveillance Requirement
frequencies to a licensee-controlled
document.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 276.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–16: The amendment revised
the License and Technical
Specifications.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 29, 2009 (74 FR
68869). The supplements dated April
16, 2010, and August 31, 2010, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 27,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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, as supplemented on July
15, 2010, and August 25, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendment modifies the PBAPS Unit 2
Technical Specification (TS) Section
2.1.1.2 to reflect revised Safety Limit
Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) values for operating cycle 19.
The SLMCPR analysis establishes
SLMCPR values that will ensure that
during normal operation and during
abnormal operational transients, at least
99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core
do not experience transition boiling if
the limit is not violated.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–44: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43574).
The supplements dated July 15, 2010,
and August 25, 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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 28,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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:
June 14, 2010, as supplemented on
August 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the licensing basis,
as described in the Final Safety Analysis
Report Update, to include damping
values for the seismic design and
analysis of the integrated head assembly
(IHA) that are consistent with the
recommendations of Regulatory Guide
(RG) 1.61, ‘‘Damping Values for Seismic
Design of Nuclear Power Plants,’’
Revision 1. In addition, the RG 1.61,
Revision 1, Table 1 note allowing the
use of a ‘‘weighted average’’ for designbasis safe-shutdown earthquake
damping values applicable to steel
structures of different connection types
will also be applied to determine the
IHA design-basis operating-basis
earthquake damping values.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—208; Unit
2—210.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
80 and DPR–82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR 44025).
The supplemental letter dated August 9,
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 September 29,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment:
December 1, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated July 23, and August 19,
2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment changes the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Revise the
required frequency of testing control rod
scram times from ‘‘at least once per 120
days of POWER OPERATION’’ to ‘‘at
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
least once per 200 days of POWER
OPERATION’’; (2) revise the evaluation
methodology for control rod scram time
tests; (3) establish a new category of
operable but ‘‘slow’’ control rods; and (4)
establish allowable limits for the
number and distribution of ‘‘slow’’ rods.
The changes are based, in part, on
Nuclear Regulatory Commissionapproved TS Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF–460, ‘‘Control Rod Scram
Time Testing Frequency.’’
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 183.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
57: The amendment revised the TSs and
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: January 26, 2010 (75 FR
4119).
The letters dated July 23, and August
19, 2010, provided clarifying
information that did not change the
initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination or expand
the application beyond the scope of the
original Federal Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 27,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of application for amendment:
November 30, 2009, as supplemented by
letter dated May 14, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment provides authorization to
upgrade selected Emergency Action
Levels based on Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 99–01, ‘‘Methodology for
Development of Emergency Action
Levels,’’ Revision 5, dated February
2008 using the guidance of NRC
Regulatory Issue Summary 2003–18,
Supplement 2, ‘‘Use of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 99–01, Methodology for
Development of Emergency Action
Levels.’’
Date of issuance: October 6, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 111.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 9, 2010 (75 FR
6411).
The letter dated May 14, 2010,
provided additional information that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment:
February 17, 2009, as supplemented on
June 15, December 1, and December 23,
2009, January 14, and July 16, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the technical
specification changes and design-basis
accident radiological consequence
analyses to support implementation of
alternative source term methodology,
pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section
50.67, ‘‘Accident source term,’’ using the
guidance described in Regulatory Guide
1.183, ‘‘Alternative Radiological Source
Terms for Evaluating Design-basis
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.’’
Date of issuance: October 4, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 183.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–12: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR
12395).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments:
January 27, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated February 4 and April 29,
2010.
Brief Description of amendments:
These amendments would increase each
unit’s rated power (RP) level from 2546
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2587 MWt,
and make Technical Specifications
changes as necessary to support
operation at the uprated power level.
The proposed change is an increase in
RP of approximately 1.6 percent.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64365
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 268.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments
change the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17447).
The supplements provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand in 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 September 24,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
Date of amendment request:
December 16, 2009 as supplemented by
letter dated June 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the licensing basis
for the approved fire protection program
as described in the Wolf Creek
Generating Station (WCGS) Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to allow
use of the fire-resistive cable for certain
power and control cables associated
with two motor-operated valves on
Train B Component Cooling Water
System. This is a deviation from certain
technical commitments to Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as
described in Appendix 9.5E of the
WCGS USAR.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 189.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–42. The amendment revised
the Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR 10831).
The supplemental letter dated June 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 amendment is contained in a
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
64366
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 19, 2010 / Notices
Safety Evaluation dated September 30,
2010.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, October 7,
2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–26152 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards
In accordance with the purposes of
Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic
Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting
on November 4–6, 2010, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The date of this meeting was previously
published in the Federal Register on
Monday, October 14, 2009, (74 FR
52829–52830).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Thursday, November 4, 2010,
Conference Room T2–B1, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman
(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make
opening remarks regarding the conduct
of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.–10 a.m.: Standard Review
Plan for Renewal of Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation Licenses and
Dry Cask Storage System Certificates of
Compliance (Open)—The Committee
will hear presentations by and hold
discussions with representatives of the
NRC staff regarding the Standard
Review Plan for renewal of Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation Licenses
and dry cask storage system Certificates
of Compliance.
10:15 a.m.–12 p.m.: Draft Final
Revision 2 of NUREG–1801, ‘‘Generic
Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report,’’
and NUREG–1800, ‘‘Standard Review
Plan for Review of License Renewal
Applications for Nuclear Power Plants’’
(Open)—The Committee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions
with representatives of the NRC staff
regarding Draft Final Revision 2 of
NUREG–1801, ‘‘Generic Aging Lessons
Learned (GALL) Report,’’ and NUREG–
1800, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for Review
of License Renewal Applications for
Nuclear Power Plants.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:24 Oct 18, 2010
Jkt 223001
1 p.m.–4 p.m.: Long-Term Core
Cooling Approach for the Revised
AP1000 Design (Open/Closed)—The
Committee will hear presentations by
and hold discussions with
representatives of the NRC staff and
Westinghouse regarding the long-term
core cooling approach for the revised
AP1000 design.
Note: A portion of this session may be
closed in order to discuss and protect
information designated as proprietary by
Westinghouse and its contractors pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
4:15 p.m.–5 p.m.: Discussion of
Topics for Meeting With the
Commission (Open)—The Committee
will discuss the following topics in
preparation for the meeting with the
Commission: ABWR Aircraft Impact
Assessment; 10 CFR 50.46(a), ‘‘RiskInformed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant
Accident Technical Requirements;’’
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility;
ESBWR—Long-Term Core Cooling; and
Design Acceptance Criteria.
5:15 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee
will discuss proposed ACRS reports on
matters discussed during this meeting.
Friday, November 5, 2010, Conference
Room T2–B1, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–9 a.m.: Discussion of Topics
for Meeting with the Commission
(Open)—The Committee will continue
the discussion of the topics in
preparation for the meeting with the
Commission.
9:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Meeting with
the Commission (Open)—The
Committee will meet with the
Commission to discuss topics listed
above.
1:15 p.m.–2:45 p.m.: Future ACRS
Activities/Report of the Planning and
Procedures Subcommittee (Open/
Closed)—The Committee will discuss
the recommendations of the Planning
and Procedures Subcommittee regarding
items proposed for consideration by the
Full Committee during future ACRS
Meetings, and matters related to the
conduct of ACRS business, including
anticipated workload and member
assignments. [Note: A portion of this
meeting may be closed pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (6) to discuss
organizational and personnel matters
that relate solely to internal personnel
rules and practices of ACRS, and
information the release of which would
constitute a clearly invasion of personal
privacy.]
2:45 p.m.–3 p.m.: Reconciliation of
ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)—The
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Committee will discuss the responses
from the NRC Executive Director for
Operations to comments and
recommendations included in recent
ACRS reports and letters.
3:15 p.m.—4:15 p.m.: Assessment of
the Quality of Selected NRC Research
Projects (Open)—The Committee will
hold discussions with members of the
ACRS Panels performing the quality
assessment of the NRC research projects
on: NUREG/CR–6947, ‘‘Human Factors
Consideration with Respect to Emerging
Technology in Nuclear Power Plants,’’
and NUREG/CR–6997, ‘‘Modeling a
Digital Feedwater Control System Using
Traditional Probabilistic Risk
Assessment Methods.’’
4:15 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee
will continue its discussion of proposed
ACRS reports.
Saturday, November 6, 2010,
Conference Room T2–B1, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–1 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee
will continue its discussion of proposed
ACRS reports.
1 p.m.–1:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous
(Open)—The Committee will continue
its discussion related to the conduct of
Committee activities and specific issues
that were not completed during
previous meetings.
Procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 14, 2009, (74 FR 52829–52830).
In accordance with those procedures,
oral or written views may be presented
by members of the public, including
representatives of the nuclear industry.
Persons desiring to make oral statements
should notify Ms. Ilka Berrios,
Cognizant ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301–
415–3179, E-mail: Ilka.Berrios@nrc.gov),
five days before the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be
made to allow necessary time during the
meeting for such statements. In view of
the possibility that the schedule for
ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the
Chairman as necessary to facilitate the
conduct of the meeting, persons
planning to attend should check with
the Cognizant ACRS staff if such
rescheduling would result in major
inconvenience.
Thirty-five hard copies of each
presentation or handout should be
provided 30 minutes before the meeting.
In addition, one electronic copy of each
presentation should be emailed to the
Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before
meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be
provided within this timeframe,
presenters should provide the Cognizant
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64359-64366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26152]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0327]
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 September 23, 2010 to October 6, 2010. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 5, 2010, (75 FR 61521).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; 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 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
[[Page 64360]]
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 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
[[Page 64361]]
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: August 27, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
methodology in the feedwater line break with loss of offsite power and
single failure event (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis summarized in the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
The revision would change the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes to control the pressurizer level.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes does not change the probability of a FWLB/
LOP/SF event as the operator actions are credited after the start of
the event.
This change in operator action time does not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors, the ability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended functions
to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the
assumed acceptance limits, or radiological release assumptions used
in evaluating the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes does not involve any design or physical
changes to the facility or any SSC of that facility. The proposed
change does not create any new failure modes or adversely affect the
interaction between any structure, system or component.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change in the credited operator action time to 20
minutes from 30 minutes does not alter the manner in which safety
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes
to instrument/system actuation setpoints are involved. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by this change and the
proposed change will not permit plant operation in a configuration
outside the design basis. The assumed 20 minutes for operator action
is consistent with Industry and NRC guidance.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 5, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.1 Fuel Storage--Criticality, to
include new spent fuel storage patterns that account for both the
increase in fuel maximum enrichment from 4.5 weight
[[Page 64362]]
percentage (wt%) U-235 to 5.0 wt% U-235 and the impact on the fuel of
higher power operation proposed under the Extended Power Uprate (EPU)
project. Although the fuel storage has been analyzed at the higher fuel
enrichment in the new criticality analysis, the fuel enrichment limit
of 4.5 wt% U-235 specified in TS 5.5.1 will not be changed under this
license amendment request. The proposed TS changes and a new supporting
criticality analysis are being submitted to revise the current
licensing basis analysis for both new fuel and spent fuel pool storage.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel,
fuel handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel
assemblies that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay
heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup
system. The proposed amendment was evaluated for impact on the
following previously evaluated events and accidents:
a. A fuel handling accident (FHA),
b. A cask drop accident,
c. A fuel mispositioning event,
d. A spent fuel pool boron dilution event,
e. A seismic event, and
f. A loss of spent fuel pool cooling event.
Although the proposed amendment will require increased handling
of the fuel, the probability of a FHA is not significantly increased
because the implementation of the proposed amendment will employ the
same equipment and process to handle fuel assemblies that is
currently used. Also, tests have confirmed that the Metamic inserts
can be installed and removed without damaging the host fuel
assemblies. The FHA radiological dose consequences associated with
fuel enrichment at this level were addressed in LAR [license
amendment request] 196 on Alternative Source Term implementation at
EPU conditions and remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed
amendments do not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of a FHA.
The proposed amendments do not increase the probability of
dropping a fuel transfer cask because they do not introduce any new
heavy loads to the SFP and do not affect heavy load handling
processes. Also, the insertion of Metamic rack inserts does not
increase the consequences of the cask drop accident because the
radiological source term of that accident is developed from a non-
mechanistically derived quantity of damaged fuel stored in the spent
fuel pool. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of a cask drop accident.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel mispositioning event because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling
procedures. These procedures continue to require identification of
the initial and target locations for each fuel assembly that is
moved. The consequences of a fuel mispositioning event are not
changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same
subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for the
worst-case fuel mispositioning event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a boron dilution event because the systems
and events that could affect spent fuel pool soluble boron are
unchanged. The consequences of a boron dilution event are unchanged
because the proposed amendment reduces the soluble boron requirement
below the currently required value and the maximum possible water
volume displaced by the inserts is an insignificant fraction of the
total spent fuel pool water volume.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a seismic event. The consequences of a
seismic event are not significantly increased because the forcing
functions for seismic excitation are not increased and because the
mass of storage racks with Metamic inserts is not appreciably
increased. Seismic analyses demonstrate adequate stress levels in
the storage racks when inserts are installed.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of SFP cooling event because the
systems and events that could affect SFP cooling are unchanged. The
consequences are not significantly increased because there are no
changes in the SFP heat load or SFP cooling systems, structures or
components. Furthermore, conservative analyses indicate that the
current design requirements and criteria continue to be met with the
Metamic inserts installed.
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?
No. The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel,
fuel handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that
may be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent
fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. The effects of operating with
the proposed amendment are listed below. The proposed amendments
were evaluated for the potential of each effect to create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident:
a. Addition of inserts to the fuel storage racks,
b. New storage patterns,
c. Additional weight from the inserts,
d. Insert movement above fuel, and
e. Displacement of fuel pool water by the inserts.
Each insert will be placed between a fuel assembly and the
storage cell wall, taking up some of the space available on two
sides of the fuel assembly. Tests confirm that the insert can be
installed and removed without damaging the fuel assembly. Analyses
demonstrate that the presence of the inserts does not adversely
affect spent fuel cooling, seismic capability, or subcriticality.
The aluminum (alloy 6061) and boron carbide materials of
construction have been shown to be compatible with nuclear fuel,
storage racks and spent fuel pool environments, and generate no
adverse material interactions. Therefore, placing the inserts into
the spent fuel pool storage racks cannot cause a new or different
kind of accident.
Operation with the proposed fuel storage patterns will not
create a new or different kind of accident because fuel movement
will continue to be controlled by approved fuel handling procedures.
These procedures continue to require identification of the initial
and target locations for each fuel assembly that is moved. There are
no changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage patterns meet these
requirements and criteria with adequate margins. Therefore, the
proposed storage patterns cannot cause a new or different kind of
accident.
Operation with the added weight of the Metamic inserts will not
create a new or different accident. The net effect of the adding the
maximum number of inserts is to add less than one percent to the
weight of the loaded racks. Furthermore, the analyses of the racks
with Metamic inserts installed demonstrate that the stress levels in
the rack modules continue to be considerably less than allowable
stress limits. Therefore, the added weight from the inserts cannot
cause a new or different kind of accident.
Operation with insert movement above stored fuel will not create
a new or different kind of accident. The insert with its handling
tool weighs considerably less than the weight of a single fuel
assembly. Single fuel assemblies are routinely moved safely over
fuel assemblies and the same level of safety in design and operation
will be maintained when moving the inserts. Furthermore, the effect
of a dropped insert to block the top of a storage cell has been
evaluated in thermal-hydraulic analyses. Therefore, the movement of
inserts cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
Whereas the installed rack inserts will displace a very small
fraction of the fuel pool water volume and impose a very small
reduction in operator response time to previously-evaluated SFP
accidents, the reduction will not promote a new or different kind of
accident. Also, displacement of water along two sides of a stored
fuel assembly may have some local reduction in the peripheral
cooling flow; however, this effect would be small compared to the
flow induced through the fuel assembly and would in no way promote a
new or different kind of accident.
The accidents and events previously analyzed and presented in
the Boraflex Remedy and Alternative Source Term LARs remain
bounding. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 64363]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
No. The proposed change was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety as they relate to criticality, structural
integrity, and spent fuel heat removal capability.
The margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR
50.68(b)(4) is unchanged. New criticality analysis confirms that
operation in accordance with the proposed amendment continues to
meet the required subcriticality margins.
The structural evaluations for the racks and spent fuel pool
with Metamic inserts installed show that the rack and spent fuel
pool are unimpaired by loading combinations during seismic motion,
and there is no adverse seismic-induced interaction between the rack
and Metamic inserts.
The proposed change does not affect spent fuel heat generation
or the spent fuel pool cooling systems. A conservative analysis
indicates that the design basis requirements and criteria for spent
fuel cooling continue to be met with the Metamic inserts in place,
and displacing coolant. Thermal hydraulic analysis of the local
effects of an installed rack insert blocking peripheral flow show a
small increase in local water and fuel clad temperatures, but will
remain within acceptable limits including no departure from nucleate
boiling.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above discussion, FPL has determined that the
proposed change does not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
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
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: September 28, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated June 24 and September 3 and 24, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Required
Action A.1 of Technical Specification 3.8.7, ``Inverters--Operating,''
for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, by
extending the Completion Time for restoration of an inoperable vital
alternating current inverter from 24 hours to 7 days.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--180; Unit 2--180; Unit 3--180.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The
amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (74 FR
62833). The supplemental letters dated June 24 and September 3 and 24,
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 September 29, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-414, Catawba Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: April 28, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated September 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.9 to exclude portions of the Steam Generator
(SG) tube from periodic SG tube inspections and plugging or repair. In
addition, reporting requirement changes were made to TS 5.6.8.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to requiring the SGs to be operable at the completion of the End
of Cycle 17 Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.: 257.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52: Amendment revised
the license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR
39977). The supplement dated September 9, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 64364]]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: April 21, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated July 28 and September 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised James A.
FitzPatrick Technical Specification (TS) 2.0, ``Safety Limits (SLs).''
Specifically, TS 2.1.1.2 replaced the listed safety limit minimum
critical power ratio values of 1.07 for two recirculation loop
operation and 1.09 for single recirculation loop operation with new
values of 1.08 and 1.11, respectively.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 299.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR
33841).
The supplements dated July 28 and September 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 NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generating Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: October 30, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated April 16, 2010, and August 31, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Oyster
Creek Technical Specifications to relocate a number of Surveillance
Requirement frequencies to a licensee-controlled document.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 276.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (74
FR 68869). The supplements dated April 16, 2010, and August 31, 2010,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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, as supplemented
on July 15, 2010, and August 25, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment modifies the PBAPS
Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.1.1.2 to reflect revised
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values for operating
cycle 19. The SLMCPR analysis establishes SLMCPR values that will
ensure that during normal operation and during abnormal operational
transients, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience transition boiling if the limit is not violated.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-44: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2010 (75 FR
43574).
The supplements dated July 15, 2010, and August 25, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 28, 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: June 14, 2010, as supplemented
on August 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
licensing basis, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report
Update, to include damping values for the seismic design and analysis
of the integrated head assembly (IHA) that are consistent with the
recommendations of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.61, ``Damping Values for
Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1. In addition, the
RG 1.61, Revision 1, Table 1 note allowing the use of a ``weighted
average'' for design-basis safe-shutdown earthquake damping values
applicable to steel structures of different connection types will also
be applied to determine the IHA design-basis operating-basis earthquake
damping values.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--208; Unit 2--210.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (75 FR
44025). The supplemental letter dated August 9, 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 September 29, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendment: December 1, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated July 23, and August 19, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Revise the required frequency of testing
control rod scram times from ``at least once per 120 days of POWER
OPERATION'' to ``at
[[Page 64365]]
least once per 200 days of POWER OPERATION''; (2) revise the evaluation
methodology for control rod scram time tests; (3) establish a new
category of operable but ``slow'' control rods; and (4) establish
allowable limits for the number and distribution of ``slow'' rods. The
changes are based, in part, on Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved
TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-460, ``Control Rod Scram Time
Testing Frequency.''
Date of issuance: September 27, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 183.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment revised the
TSs and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 26, 2010 (75 FR
4119).
The letters dated July 23, and August 19, 2010, provided clarifying
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond
the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna
Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of application for amendment: November 30, 2009, as
supplemented by letter dated May 14, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment provides
authorization to upgrade selected Emergency Action Levels based on
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, ``Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels,'' Revision 5, dated February 2008 using the
guidance of NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18, Supplement 2, ``Use
of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels.''
Date of issuance: October 6, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 111.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (75 FR
6411).
The letter dated May 14, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 6, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: February 17, 2009, as
supplemented on June 15, December 1, and December 23, 2009, January 14,
and July 16, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the technical
specification changes and design-basis accident radiological
consequence analyses to support implementation of alternative source
term methodology, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.67, ``Accident source term,'' using
the guidance described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative
Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design-basis Accidents at
Nuclear Power Reactors.''
Date of issuance: October 4, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 183.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (74 FR
12395).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: January 27, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February 4 and April 29, 2010.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments would increase
each unit's rated power (RP) level from 2546 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
2587 MWt, and make Technical Specifications changes as necessary to
support operation at the uprated power level. The proposed change is an
increase in RP of approximately 1.6 percent.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2010.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 268.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (75 FR
17447).
The supplements provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand in 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 September 24, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2009 as supplemented by
letter dated June 2, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the licensing
basis for the approved fire protection program as described in the Wolf
Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)
to allow use of the fire-resistive cable for certain power and control
cables associated with two motor-operated valves on Train B Component
Cooling Water System. This is a deviation from certain technical
commitments to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as described in Appendix 9.5E of
the WCGS USAR.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2010.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 189.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (75 FR
10831). The supplemental letter dated June 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 amendment is contained
in a
[[Page 64366]]
Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2010.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, October 7, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-26152 Filed 10-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P