Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 18801-18807 [2011-7740]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
Building 12, Room C100D. All non-U.S.
citizens must fax a copy of their
passport, and print or type their name,
current address, citizenship, company
affiliation (if applicable) to include
address, telephone number, and their
title, place of birth, date of birth, U.S.
visa information to include type,
number and expiration date, U.S. Social
Security Number (if applicable), and
place and date of entry into the U.S., to
Ms. Tereda J. Frazier, Executive
Secretary, Information Technology
Infrastructure Committee, NASA
Advisory Council, at e-mail
tereda.j.frazier@nasa.gov or by
telephone at (202) 358–2595 by no later
than April 19, 2011. To expedite
admittance, attendees with U.S.
citizenship can provide identifying
information 3 working days in advance
by contacting Ms. Tereda J. Frazier via
e-mail at tereda.j.frazier@nasa.gov or by
telephone at 202–358–2595. Persons
with disabilities who require assistance
should indicate this.
Dated: March 29, 2011.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–7952 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD
Sunshine Act Meetings: April 2011
All meetings are held at
2:30 p.m.
Tuesday, April 5;
Wednesday, April 6;
Thursday, April 7;
Tuesday, April 12;
Wednesday, April 13;
Thursday, April 14;
Tuesday, April 19;
Wednesday, April 20;
Thursday, April 21;
Tuesday, April 26;
Wednesday, April 27;
Thursday, April 28;
PLACE: Board Agenda Room, No. 11820,
1099 14th St., NW., Washington DC
20570.
STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to
§ 102.139(a) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the Board or a panel
thereof will consider ‘‘the issuance of a
subpoena, the Board’s participation in a
civil action or proceeding or an
arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or
disposition * * * of particular
representation or unfair labor practice
proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
TIME AND DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
the [National Labor Relations] Act, or
any court proceedings collateral or
ancillary thereto.’’ See also 5 U.S.C.
552b(c)(10).
DATED: April 1, 2011.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary,
(202) 273–1067.
Lester A. Heltzer,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–8221 Filed 4–1–11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7545–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0071]
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 March 10,
2011, to March 23, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on
March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16004).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18801
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted
by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch
(RADB), TWB–05–B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, and should cite the publication
date and page number of this Federal
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, Room O1–
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
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
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18802
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
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, Room
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
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/adams.html. If a request for
a hearing or petition for leave to
intervene is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The 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
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate. Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site.
Further information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at 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
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/
e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by 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://
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. 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.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request:
November 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would revise the
application of Risk-Managed Technical
Specifications (RMTS) to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ‘‘Control Room
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration
System.’’ This change will correct a
misapplication of the Configuration Risk
Management Program (CRMP) that is
currently allowed by the Specification.
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18803
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the
Configuration Risk Management Program
(CRMP) to be applied to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ‘‘Control Room
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems’’ for
the condition where one train of CRHVAC
[Control Room Makeup and Cleanup
Filtration System] is inoperable only due to
the unavailability of cooling. The proposed
change extends the AOT [allowed outage
time] from 72 hours to 7 days for the
condition where two trains of CRHVAC are
inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The CRMP cannot be applied to the
loss of two trains of cooling.
The change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated because the change
does not involve a change to the plant or its
modes of operation. In addition, the riskinformed configuration management program
will be applied to effectively manage the
availability of required structures, systems,
and components to assure there is no
significant increase in the probability of an
accident.
This proposed change does not increase
the consequences of an accident because the
design-basis mitigation function of the
affected systems is not changed and the riskinformed configuration management program
will be applied to effectively manage the
availability of structures, systems, and
components required to mitigate the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the
Configuration Risk Management Program
(CRMP) to be applied to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ‘‘Control Room
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems’’ for
the condition where one train of CRHVAC is
inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The proposed change extends the
AOT from 72 hours to 7 days for the
condition where two trains of CRHVAC are
inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The CRMP cannot be applied to the
loss of two trains of cooling.
The proposed change will not alter the
plant configuration (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or require any
unusual operator actions. The proposed
change will not alter the way any structure,
system, or component functions, and will not
significantly alter the manner in which the
plant is operated. The response of the plant
and the operators following an accident will
not be different. In addition, the proposed
change does not introduce any new failure
modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
18804
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction to a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the
Configuration Risk Management Program
(CRMP) to be applied to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ‘‘Control Room
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems’’ for
the condition where one train of CRHVAC is
inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The proposed change extends the
AOT from 72 hours to 7 days for the
condition where two trains of CRHVAC are
inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The CRMP cannot be applied to the
loss of two trains of cooling.
The CRMP implements a risk-informed
configuration risk management program in a
manner to assure that adequate margins of
safety are maintained. Application of the
configuration risk management program to
TS 3.7.7 complements the risk assessment
required by the Maintenance Rule and
effectively manages the risk for limiting
condition for operation when the Control
Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration
Systems are inoperable.
The condition where two trains of
CRHVAC are inoperable only due to
unavailability of cooling is analogous to the
condition where one train of CRHVAC is
inoperable due to an adverse impact on the
dose mitigation capability. The condition
does not make the design basis accident any
more probable. The safety function can still
be achieved assuming no single failure
during the AOT should a low probability
DBA [design-basis accident] occur. Therefore,
the extension of the AOT for the loss of two
cooling trains to the same AOT as that for the
loss of one train impacting the dose
mitigation function does not significantly
reduce the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the 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: A. H.
Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request:
December 21, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1, ‘‘Fuel
Assemblies,’’ to add Optimized
ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
cladding material, and TS 6.9.1.6, ‘‘Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ to add
a Westinghouse topical report to the
analytical methods used to determine
the core operating limits. This change is
consistent with use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM for fuel rod cladding material
as described in Addendum 1–A to
Westinghouse topical report WCAP–
12610–P–A & CENPD–404–P–A,
‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM.’’
STP Nuclear Operating Company has
also requested an exemption from the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance
criteria for emergency core cooling
systems for light-water nuclear power
reactors,’’ and Appendix K to 10 CFR
Part 50, ‘‘ECCS Evaluation Models,’’ to
allow fuel rods with Optimized
ZIRLOTM cladding to be used in core
reloads.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification
change is to add Optimized ZIRLOTM to the
allowable or approved cladding materials to
be used at the South Texas Project. Adding
Optimized ZIRLOTM cladding material does
not increase the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
Westinghouse topical report WCAP–
12610–P–A & CENPD–404–P–A, Addendum
1–A ‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM,’’ July 2006,
provides the details and results of material
testing of Optimized ZIRLOTM compared to
standard ZIRLOTM as well as the material
properties to be used in various models and
methodologies when analyzing Optimized
ZIRLOTM. As the nuclear industry pursues
longer operating cycles with increased fuel
discharge burnup and fuel duty, the
corrosion performance requirements for the
nuclear fuel cladding become more
demanding. Optimized ZIRLOTM was
developed to meet these needs and provides
a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining
the benefits of mechanical strength and
resistance to accelerated corrosion from
abnormal chemistry conditions. In addition,
fuel rod internal pressures (resulting from the
increased fuel duty, use of integral fuel
burnable absorbers, and corrosion/
temperature feedback effects) have become
more limiting with respect to fuel rod design
criteria. Reducing the associated corrosion
buildup and thus minimizing temperature
feedback effects, provides additional margin
to the fuel rod internal pressure design
criterion. Therefore, adding Optimized
ZIRLOTM to the approved fuel rod cladding
materials does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NRC allows Optimized ZIRLOTM to be
used as fuel cladding material in
Westinghouse-fueled reactors provided that
licensees ensure compliance with the
conditions and limitations set forth within
NRC Safety Evaluation for the topical report.
The conditions and limitations are the
current requirements and confirmation of
these conditions is required as part of the
core reload process.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Optimized ZIRLO TM provides a reduced
fuel cladding corrosion rate while
maintaining the benefits of mechanical
strength and resistance to accelerated
corrosion from abnormal chemistry
conditions. The fuel rod design bases are
established to satisfy the general and specific
safety criteria addressed in UFSAR [Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15,
Accident Analyses and in Technical
Specifications. Fuel rods are designed to
prevent excessive fuel temperatures,
excessive internal rod gas pressures due to
fission gas releases, and excessive cladding
stresses and strains. WCAP–12610–P–A &
CENPD–404–P–A, Addendum 1–A
‘‘Optimized ZIRLO TM,’’ July 2006, provides
the details and results of material testing of
Optimized ZIRLO TM compared to standard
ZIRLO TM as well as the material properties
to be used in various models and
methodologies when analyzing Optimized
ZIRLO TM. The original design-basis
requirements are maintained. Therefore, the
change in material does not create the
possibility of an accident or malfunction not
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The cladding material used in the fuel rods
is designed and tested to prevent excessive
fuel temperatures, excessive internal rod gas
pressure due to fission gas releases, and
excessive cladding stresses and strains.
Optimized ZIRLO TM was developed to meet
these needs and provides a reduced corrosion
rate while maintaining the benefits of
mechanical strength and resistance to
accelerated corrosion from abnormal
chemistry conditions. Westinghouse topical
report WCAP–12610–P–A & CENPD–404–P–
A, ‘‘Optimized ZIRLO TM,’’ July 2006,
provides the details and results of material
testing of Optimized ZIRLO TM compared to
standard ZIRLO TM as well as the material
properties to be used in various models and
methodologies when analyzing Optimized
ZIRLO TM. The NRC approved use of
Optimized ZIRLO TM fuel cladding material
as detailed in the Safety Evaluation. The
original design-basis requirements are
maintained.
The change in material does not
significantly reduce margin required to
preclude or reduce the effects of an accident
or malfunction previously evaluated in the
UFSAR.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the standards of
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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: A. H.
Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for A Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) The applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
Docket No. 50–318, Calvert Cliffs
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of application for amendment:
October 4, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated December 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment will revise Technical
Specification 5.5.16, ‘‘Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to allow
a one-time 5-year extension of the
containment Integrated leak rate test
(CILRT) interval from 10 to 15 years.
This will require the licensee to perform
its next CILRT no later than May 1,
2016.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance to be implemented within 45
days.
Amendment No.: 274.
Renewed License No. DPR–69:
Amendment revised the License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR 1646).
The letter dated December 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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments:
March 17, 2010, as supplemented
January 14, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)—425,
Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control—Risk
Informed TSTF Initiative 5b’’. When
implemented, TSTF–425 Revision 3
relocates specific periodic frequencies
of TSs surveillances to a licenseecontrolled program, the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program, and will
provide requirements for the new
program in the Administrative Controls
section of TSs.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18805
Date of Issuance: March 21, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–372, Unit
2–374, and Unit 3–373.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55:
Amendments revised the licenses and
the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 7, 2010 (75 FR
54393). The supplement dated January
14, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March
29, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated January 14, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ‘‘Primary
Containment Isolation Instrumentation,’’
by deleting channel check Surveillance
Requirement 3.3.6.1.1 from TS Table
3.3.6.1–1, ‘‘Primary Containment
Isolation Instrumentation,’’ for the
traversing in-core probe (TIP) isolation
instrumentation.
Date of issuance: March 18, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 220.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
21: Amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30444).
The supplemental letter dated January
14, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
18806
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: February
22, 2010, as supplemented by letters
dated June 8 and August 12, 2010, and
January 4 and March 7, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment added valve SI–4052A
(Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) 2
Shutdown Cooling (SDC) suction inside
containment bypass isolation) and valve
SI–4052B (RCL 1 SDC suction inside
containment bypass isolation) to
Technical Specification Table 3.4–1,
‘‘Reactor Coolant System Pressure
Isolation Valves.’’ This bypass line
equalizes the SDC system pressure
downstream of valve SI–405A (RCL 2
SDC suction inside containment
isolation) and valve SI–405B (RCL 1
SDC suction inside containment
isolation) in order to minimize the
pressure transient in the system when
valves SI–405A(B) are opened.
Date of issuance: March 23, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to Mode 4 following refueling
outage 17.
Amendment No.: 233.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
38: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20633).
The supplemental letters dated June 8
and August 12, 2010, and January 4 and
March 7, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego
County, New York
Date of application for amendment:
March 18, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the NMP1 Technical
Specifications (TSs) for snubbers by
removing TS 3⁄4.6.4, ‘‘Shock Suppressors
(Snubbers),’’ relocating these
requirements to a licensee-controlled
document, and adding a new limiting
condition for operation, LCO 3.0.8,
related to snubbers. In addition, the TS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Table of Contents is revised to reflect
these changes. The addition of LCO
3.0.8 is consistent with the industry
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF 372–A, Revision
4, ‘‘Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability
of Snubbers.’’ A notice of the TSTF–
372–A, Revision 4 TS improvement was
published in the Federal Register on
May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252) as part of the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process.
Date of issuance: March 10, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 207.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–63: The amendment revises
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39979).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1),
Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment:
March 22, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the NMP1 Technical
Specifications (TSs) Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.3.7.b. by modifying
the frequency of this SR from ‘‘at least
once per operating cycle’’ to ‘‘following
maintenance that could result in nozzle
blockage.’’ Additionally, the SR is
revised to be more reflective of the
Standard TS SR by deleting references
to the type of test (e.g., air) performed
and deleting references to the spray
headers.
Date of issuance: March 16, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 208.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–63: The amendment revises
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR 39980).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272
and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 1 and 2, Salem County,
New Jersey
Date of application for amendments:
March 23, 2010, as supplemented on
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
November 19, 2010, January 31, 2011,
and February 23, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modify the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by relocating
specific surveillance frequencies to a
licensee-controlled program. The
changes are based on Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-approved TS
Task Force (TSTF) change TSTF–425,
Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control—
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative
5b.’’
Date of issuance: March 21, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 120
days.
Amendment Nos.: 299 and 282.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
70 and DPR–75: The amendments
revised the TSs and the Facility
Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33843).
The letters dated November 19, 2010,
January 31, 2011, and February 23,
2011, provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed
no significant hazards consideration
determination or expand the application
beyond the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments:
November 23, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) 5.5.9, ‘‘Steam
Generator (SG) Program,’’ to exclude
portions of the tube below the top of the
SG tubesheet from periodic SG tube
inspection for Unit 1 during Refueling
Outage 16 and the subsequent operating
cycle and for Unit 2 during Refueling
Outage 15 and the subsequent operating
cycle. In addition, this amendment
revised TS 5.6.10, ‘‘Steam Generator
Tube Inspection Report,’’ to remove the
reference to previous interim alternate
repair criteria and provide reporting
requirements specific to the temporary
alternate repair criteria.
Date of issuance: March 14, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–160 and
Unit 2–142.
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 / Notices
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised
the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: January 4, 2011 (76 FR 388).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 18,
2010, as supplemented by letter dated
October 5, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments eliminated the Residual
Heat Removal (RHR) system design
criterion for diversity among the three
Reactor Coolant System pressure
transmitters that generate interlocks for
three series-pairs of RHR suction
isolation valves. The change allows
similarly qualified pressure transmitters
to be used in more than one RHR train
as necessary regardless of manufacturer
of the transmitters. The revision is
incorporated in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report for South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–194; Unit
2–182.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
76 and NPF–80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 21, 2010 (75 FR
57528). The supplemental letter dated
October 5, 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 March 22, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of March 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Apr 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–7740 Filed 4–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0073]
Proposed Generic Communication;
Licensee Justification of Long-Term
Surveillance Charge
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public
comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue
a regulatory issue summary (RIS) to reaffirm its existing interpretation of the
regulatory policy regarding the scope
and corresponding dollar amount of the
long-term surveillance charge (LTSC) to
be paid to the general treasury of the
United States, or to an appropriate State
agency. This LTSC is paid prior to the
transfer of title to a uranium mill,
covered by Title II of the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA) of 1978 (UMTRCA Title II
site), to the long-term custodian for
long-term care and license termination.
This Federal Register notice is available
through the NRC’s Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) under accession
number ML102080569.
DATES: Comment period expires May 5,
2011. Comments submitted after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but assurance of consideration
cannot be given except for comments
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC–2011–
0073 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC website and on the
Federal rulemaking website
Regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18807
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2011–0073. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by fax to RADB at 301–492–
3446.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR):
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available electronically at the NRC’s
Electronic Reading Room at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text
and image files of NRC’s public
documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this notice can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID: NRC–2011–0073.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Roman A. Przygodzki at 301–415–5143
or by e-mail at
roman.przygodzki@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Draft Regulatory Issue Summary 2010–
XX, ‘‘Licensee Justification of LongTerm Surveillance Charge’’
Addressees
All holders of operating licenses for
conventional or heap leach uranium
recovery facilities, all holders of
licenses for conventional or heap leach
uranium recovery facilities in
E:\FR\FM\05APN1.SGM
05APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18801-18807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7740]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0071]
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 March 10, 2011, to March 23, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16004).
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, Room O1-F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
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
[[Page 18802]]
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, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. 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/adams.html. If a request for a hearing or
petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
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 identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant
(or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and
access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will
be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in
which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate. Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on 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 the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at 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
[[Page 18803]]
General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the
Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the
filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately.
Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or
representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate
before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. 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.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: November 22, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
the application of Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) to
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup
Filtration System.'' This change will correct a misapplication of the
Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) that is currently allowed
by the Specification.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7,
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the
condition where one train of CRHVAC [Control Room Makeup and Cleanup
Filtration System] is inoperable only due to the unavailability of
cooling. The proposed change extends the AOT [allowed outage time]
from 72 hours to 7 days for the condition where two trains of CRHVAC
are inoperable only due to the unavailability of cooling. The CRMP
cannot be applied to the loss of two trains of cooling.
The change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change
does not involve a change to the plant or its modes of operation. In
addition, the risk-informed configuration management program will be
applied to effectively manage the availability of required
structures, systems, and components to assure there is no
significant increase in the probability of an accident.
This proposed change does not increase the consequences of an
accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the
affected systems is not changed and the risk-informed configuration
management program will be applied to effectively manage the
availability of structures, systems, and components required to
mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7,
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the
condition where one train of CRHVAC is inoperable only due to the
unavailability of cooling. The proposed change extends the AOT from
72 hours to 7 days for the condition where two trains of CRHVAC are
inoperable only due to the unavailability of cooling. The CRMP
cannot be applied to the loss of two trains of cooling.
The proposed change will not alter the plant configuration (no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any
unusual operator actions. The proposed change will not alter the way
any structure, system, or component functions, and will not
significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. The
response of the plant and the operators following an accident will
not be different. In addition, the proposed change does not
introduce any new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different
[[Page 18804]]
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction to a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the Configuration Risk Management
Program (CRMP) to be applied to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7,
``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup Filtration Systems'' for the
condition where one train of CRHVAC is inoperable only due to the
unavailability of cooling. The proposed change extends the AOT from
72 hours to 7 days for the condition where two trains of CRHVAC are
inoperable only due to the unavailability of cooling. The CRMP
cannot be applied to the loss of two trains of cooling.
The CRMP implements a risk-informed configuration risk
management program in a manner to assure that adequate margins of
safety are maintained. Application of the configuration risk
management program to TS 3.7.7 complements the risk assessment
required by the Maintenance Rule and effectively manages the risk
for limiting condition for operation when the Control Room Makeup
and Cleanup Filtration Systems are inoperable.
The condition where two trains of CRHVAC are inoperable only due
to unavailability of cooling is analogous to the condition where one
train of CRHVAC is inoperable due to an adverse impact on the dose
mitigation capability. The condition does not make the design basis
accident any more probable. The safety function can still be
achieved assuming no single failure during the AOT should a low
probability DBA [design-basis accident] occur. Therefore, the
extension of the AOT for the loss of two cooling trains to the same
AOT as that for the loss of one train impacting the dose mitigation
function does not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the 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: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' to add
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ as an approved fuel rod cladding material, and TS
6.9.1.6, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add a Westinghouse
topical report to the analytical methods used to determine the core
operating limits. This change is consistent with use of Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ for fuel rod cladding material as described in Addendum 1-A
to Westinghouse topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A,
``Optimized ZIRLO\TM\.''
STP Nuclear Operating Company has also requested an exemption from
the provisions of 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency
core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,'' and
Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' to allow fuel
rods with Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ cladding to be used in core reloads.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification change is to add Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ to the allowable or approved cladding materials to be used
at the South Texas Project. Adding Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ cladding
material does not increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Westinghouse topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A,
Addendum 1-A ``Optimized ZIRLO\TM\,'' July 2006, provides the
details and results of material testing of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\
compared to standard ZIRLO\TM\ as well as the material properties to
be used in various models and methodologies when analyzing Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\. As the nuclear industry pursues longer operating cycles
with increased fuel discharge burnup and fuel duty, the corrosion
performance requirements for the nuclear fuel cladding become more
demanding. Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ was developed to meet these needs and
provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining the benefits of
mechanical strength and resistance to accelerated corrosion from
abnormal chemistry conditions. In addition, fuel rod internal
pressures (resulting from the increased fuel duty, use of integral
fuel burnable absorbers, and corrosion/temperature feedback effects)
have become more limiting with respect to fuel rod design criteria.
Reducing the associated corrosion buildup and thus minimizing
temperature feedback effects, provides additional margin to the fuel
rod internal pressure design criterion. Therefore, adding Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ to the approved fuel rod cladding materials does not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The NRC allows Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ to be used as fuel cladding
material in Westinghouse-fueled reactors provided that licensees
ensure compliance with the conditions and limitations set forth
within NRC Safety Evaluation for the topical report. The conditions
and limitations are the current requirements and confirmation of
these conditions is required as part of the core reload process.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ provides a reduced fuel cladding corrosion
rate while maintaining the benefits of mechanical strength and
resistance to accelerated corrosion from abnormal chemistry
conditions. The fuel rod design bases are established to satisfy the
general and specific safety criteria addressed in UFSAR [Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15, Accident Analyses and in
Technical Specifications. Fuel rods are designed to prevent
excessive fuel temperatures, excessive internal rod gas pressures
due to fission gas releases, and excessive cladding stresses and
strains. WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A ``Optimized
ZIRLO \TM\,'' July 2006, provides the details and results of
material testing of Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ compared to standard ZIRLO
\TM\ as well as the material properties to be used in various models
and methodologies when analyzing Optimized ZIRLO \TM\. The original
design-basis requirements are maintained. Therefore, the change in
material does not create the possibility of an accident or
malfunction not previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The cladding material used in the fuel rods is designed and
tested to prevent excessive fuel temperatures, excessive internal
rod gas pressure due to fission gas releases, and excessive cladding
stresses and strains. Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ was developed to meet
these needs and provides a reduced corrosion rate while maintaining
the benefits of mechanical strength and resistance to accelerated
corrosion from abnormal chemistry conditions. Westinghouse topical
report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, ``Optimized ZIRLO \TM\,''
July 2006, provides the details and results of material testing of
Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ compared to standard ZIRLO \TM\ as well as the
material properties to be used in various models and methodologies
when analyzing Optimized ZIRLO \TM\. The NRC approved use of
Optimized ZIRLO \TM\ fuel cladding material as detailed in the
Safety Evaluation. The original design-basis requirements are
maintained.
The change in material does not significantly reduce margin
required to preclude or reduce the effects of an accident or
malfunction previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the standards of
[[Page 18805]]
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: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available 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.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket No. 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of application for amendment: October 4, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated December 9, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment will revise Technical
Specification 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to
allow a one-time 5-year extension of the containment Integrated leak
rate test (CILRT) interval from 10 to 15 years. This will require the
licensee to perform its next CILRT no later than May 1, 2016.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
45 days.
Amendment No.: 274.
Renewed License No. DPR-69: Amendment revised the License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR
1646). The letter dated December 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of application of amendments: March 17, 2010, as supplemented
January 14, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF)--425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control--Risk Informed TSTF Initiative 5b''. When implemented,
TSTF-425 Revision 3 relocates specific periodic frequencies of TSs
surveillances to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program, and will provide requirements for the new
program in the Administrative Controls section of TSs.
Date of Issuance: March 21, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-372, Unit 2-374, and Unit 3-373.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (75
FR 54393). The supplement dated January 14, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated January 14, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment Isolation
Instrumentation,'' by deleting channel check Surveillance Requirement
3.3.6.1.1 from TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation
Instrumentation,'' for the traversing in-core probe (TIP) isolation
instrumentation.
Date of issuance: March 18, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 220.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (75 FR
30444). The supplemental letter dated January 14, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 18, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 18806]]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: February 22, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated June 8 and August 12, 2010, and January 4 and March 7,
2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added valve SI-4052A
(Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) 2 Shutdown Cooling (SDC) suction inside
containment bypass isolation) and valve SI-4052B (RCL 1 SDC suction
inside containment bypass isolation) to Technical Specification Table
3.4-1, ``Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation Valves.'' This
bypass line equalizes the SDC system pressure downstream of valve SI-
405A (RCL 2 SDC suction inside containment isolation) and valve SI-405B
(RCL 1 SDC suction inside containment isolation) in order to minimize
the pressure transient in the system when valves SI-405A(B) are opened.
Date of issuance: March 23, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to Mode 4 following refueling outage 17.
Amendment No.: 233.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20633). The supplemental letters dated June 8 and August 12, 2010, and
January 4 and March 7, 2011, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: March 18, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the NMP1
Technical Specifications (TSs) for snubbers by removing TS \3/4\.6.4,
``Shock Suppressors (Snubbers),'' relocating these requirements to a
licensee-controlled document, and adding a new limiting condition for
operation, LCO 3.0.8, related to snubbers. In addition, the TS Table of
Contents is revised to reflect these changes. The addition of LCO 3.0.8
is consistent with the industry Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF 372-A, Revision 4, ``Addition of LCO 3.0.8,
Inoperability of Snubbers.'' A notice of the TSTF-372-A, Revision 4 TS
improvement was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR
23252) as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
Date of issuance: March 10, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 207.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment
revises the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR
39979).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 10, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: March 22, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the NMP1
Technical Specifications (TSs) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.3.7.b.
by modifying the frequency of this SR from ``at least once per
operating cycle'' to ``following maintenance that could result in
nozzle blockage.'' Additionally, the SR is revised to be more
reflective of the Standard TS SR by deleting references to the type of
test (e.g., air) performed and deleting references to the spray
headers.
Date of issuance: March 16, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 208.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment
revises the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2010 (75 FR
39980).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of application for amendments: March 23, 2010, as supplemented
on November 19, 2010, January 31, 2011, and February 23, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program. The changes are based on
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change
TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
Date of issuance: March 21, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 299 and 282.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments
revised the TSs and the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (75 FR
33843). The letters dated November 19, 2010, January 31, 2011, and
February 23, 2011, provided clarifying information that did not change
the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination
or expand the application beyond the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: November 23, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,''
to exclude portions of the tube below the top of the SG tubesheet from
periodic SG tube inspection for Unit 1 during Refueling Outage 16 and
the subsequent operating cycle and for Unit 2 during Refueling Outage
15 and the subsequent operating cycle. In addition, this amendment
revised TS 5.6.10, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to
remove the reference to previous interim alternate repair criteria and
provide reporting requirements specific to the temporary alternate
repair criteria.
Date of issuance: March 14, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-160 and Unit 2-142.
[[Page 18807]]
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 4, 2011 (76 FR
388).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 14, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated October 5, 2010.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminated the
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system design criterion for diversity among
the three Reactor Coolant System pressure transmitters that generate
interlocks for three series-pairs of RHR suction isolation valves. The
change allows similarly qualified pressure transmitters to be used in
more than one RHR train as necessary regardless of manufacturer of the
transmitters. The revision is incorporated in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-194; Unit 2-182.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (75
FR 57528). The supplemental letter dated October 5, 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 March 22, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-7740 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P