Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 28470-28479 [2011-11804]
Download as PDF
28470
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice: (11–047)]
NASA Advisory Council; Science
Committee; Heliophysics
Subcommittee; Meeting
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92–463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) announces a meeting of the
Heliophysics Subcommittee of the
NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This
Subcommittee reports to the Science
Committee of the NAC. The meeting
will be held for the purpose of soliciting
from the scientific community and other
persons scientific and technical
information relevant to program
planning.
SUMMARY:
Monday, June 20, 2011, 9 a.m. to
5:30 p.m.; Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 9
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and Wednesday, June
22, 2011, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Local Time.
ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E
Street, SW, Rooms 9H40, 8R40, and
3H46 consecutively, Washington, DC
20546.
DATES:
Ms.
Marian Norris, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA Headquarters,
Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–4452,
fax (202) 358–4118, or
mnorris@nasa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
meeting will be open to the public up
to the capacity of the room. The agenda
for the meeting includes the following
topics:
—Heliophysics Division Overview and
Program Status
—Status of Living with a Star Program
—Status of Solar Terrestrial Probes
Program
—Status of Explorer Program
—Research and Analysis Programs
—Report from Data and Computing
Working Group
—Assessment of Heliophysics Division
Science Accomplishments
It is imperative that the meeting be held
on these dates to accommodate the
scheduling priorities of the key
participants. Attendees will be
requested to sign a register and to
comply with NASA security
requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID, before
receiving an access badge. Foreign
nationals attending this meeting will be
required to provide a copy of their
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
passport, visa, or green card in addition
to providing the following information
no less than 10 working days prior to
the meeting: Full Name; gender; date/
place of birth; citizenship; visa/green
card information (number, type,
expiration date); passport information
(number, country, expiration date);
employer/affiliation information (name
of institution, address, country,
telephone); title/position of attendee. To
expedite admittance, attendees with
U.S. citizenship can provide identifying
information 3 working days in advance
by contacting Marian Norris via e-mail
at mnorris@nasa.gov or by telephone at
(202) 358–4452.
Dated: May 12, 2011.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–12104 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
Sunshine Act Meeting
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, May
24, 2011.
PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The two items are open to the
public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
8251A Aircraft Accident Report:
Collision into Mountainous Terrain,
GCI Communication Corp., de
Havilland DHC–3T, N455A,
Aleknagik, Alaska, August 9, 2010.
8306 Aircraft Accident Report: Crash
After Encounter with Instrument
Meteorological Conditions During
Takeoff from Remote Landing Site,
New Mexico State Police Agusta
S.p.A. A–109E, N606SP, near Santa
Fe, New Mexico, June 9, 2009.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)
314–6100.
The press and public may enter the
NTSB Conference Center one hour prior
to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by
Friday, May 20, 2011.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi
Bing, (202) 314–6403 or by e-mail at
bingc@ntsb.gov.
TIME AND DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Friday, May 13, 2011.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–12271 Filed 5–13–11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0104]
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 April 21,
2011 to May 4, 2011. The last biweekly
notice was published on May 3, 2011
(76 FR 24926).
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
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
Documents Access and Management
System’s (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a
request for a hearing or petition for
leave to intervene is filed by the above
date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28471
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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28472
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the E–
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 the NRC
guidance available on the NRC public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/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 email notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E–Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E–Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 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 the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Library online at 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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 7,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would add an
applicability period of 42.1 effective full
power years (EFPY) to TS LCO 3.4.3,
figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 which
contain the pressure-temperature (P/T)
limit curves for primary coolant system
(PCS) heatup and cooldown, and
limiting condition for operation (LCO)
3.4.12 figure 3.4.12–1, which contains
the low temperature overpressure
protection (LTOP) setpoint limit curve.
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.
No changes are being made to the existing
pressure-temperature (P/T) limit curves in TS
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.3
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 and the low
temperature overpressure (LTOP) setpoint
limit curve in LCO 3.4.12 Figure 3.4.12–1.
The P/T limits curves and the LTOP setpoint
limit curve are only being revised to add the
applicability period of 42.1 effective full
power years. This applicability period has
been verified to be conservative for operation
through the expiration of the operating
license on March 24, 2031.
The changes to the TS figures are
applicable to normal plant operations and do
not influence the probability of occurrence or
safety analysis considerations for design
basis accidents. Consequently, there will be
no change to the probability or consequences
of accidents previously evaluated. Operating
the facility in accordance with the P/T limit
and LTOP setpoint limit curves ensures that
stresses caused by the thermal gradient
through the RV beltline material remain
bounded by the stress analyses. The
proposed amendment does not involve
operation of required structures, systems, or
components in a manner or configuration
different than previously recognized or
evaluated. No radiological barriers are
affected by the change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No changes are being made to the existing
P/T limit curves in TS Figures 3.4.3–1 and
3.4.3–2 and or in the existing LTOP setpoint
limit curves in TS Figure 3.4.12–1. The TS
figures are only being changed to add the
applicability period of 42.1 effective full
power years for the P/T limits and LTOP
setpoint limit curves. Adding the
applicability periods to the TS figures will
not create the possibility of any new or
different kind of accidents.
The change does not involve a
modification of plant structures, systems, or
components. The change will not affect the
manner in which the plant is operated and
will not degrade the reliability of structures,
systems, or components. Equipment
protection features will not be deleted or
modified, equipment redundancy or
independence will not be reduced, and
supporting system performance will not be
affected. No new failure modes or
mechanisms will be introduced as a result of
this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 describes
the conditions that require P/T limits and
provides the general bases for these limits.
Operating limits based on the criteria of
Appendix G, as defined by applicable
regulations, codes and standards, provide
reasonable assurance that non-ductile or
rapidly propagating failure will not occur.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
The P/T limits are prescribed for all plant
modes to avoid encountering pressure,
temperature, and temperature rate of change
conditions that might cause undetected flaws
to propagate and cause non-ductile failure of
the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
Calculation of P/T limits in accordance with
the criteria of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50
and applicable regulatory requirements
ensures that adequate margins of safety are
maintained and there is no significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
No change is being made to the existing
P/T limit curves or LTOP setpoint curve.
Only the applicability period associated with
the P/T Limits and LTOP setpoints is being
extended. Since the P/T limits and LTOP
setpoint limits remain unchanged there is no
reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. There is no change
or impact on any safety analysis assumption
or on any other parameter affecting the
course of an accident analysis supporting the
basis of any Technical Specification. The
proposed change does not involve any
increase in calculated off-site dose
consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William
Dennis, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440
Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 4,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to
define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS)
leakage detection instrumentation to
operable status; establish alternate
methods of monitoring RCS leakage
when one or more required monitors are
inoperable and make conforming TS
Bases changes. These changes are
consistent with NRC-approved Revision
3 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification (STS) Change Traveler
TSTF–514, ‘‘Revise BWR Operability
Requirements and Actions for RCS
Leakage Instrumentation.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28473
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (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 clarifies the
operability requirements for the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation and reduces the
time allowed for the plant to operate when
the only TS-required operable Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The
monitoring of RCS leakage is not a precursor
to any accident previously evaluated. The
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to
mitigate the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 clarifies the
operability requirements for the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation and reduces the
time allowed for the plant to operate when
the only TS-required operable RCS leakage
detection instrumentation monitor is the
drywell atmospheric gaseous radiation
monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will
be installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the
operability requirements for the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation and reduces the
time allowed for the plant to operate when
the only TS-required operable RCS leakage
detection instrumentation monitor is the
drywell atmospheric gaseous radiation
monitor. Reducing the amount of time the
plant is allowed to operate with only the
drywell atmospheric gaseous radiation
monitor operable increases the margin of
safety by increasing the likelihood that an
increase in RCS leakage will be detected
before it potentially results in gross failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
28474
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J.
Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the
Licensee), Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–
316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP–1), Berrien
County, Michigan
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: March
18, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TS),
removing the specific isolation time for
the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves (MSIVs) from
Surveillance Requirements 3.7.2.1,
3.7.3.1, and 3.7.3.2. These changes were
previously approved generically by the
NRC staff and are tracked as Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specification
Change Traveler TSTF–491.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee incorporated by reference the
no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) analysis endorsed by the NRC
staff in a December 29, 2006, Federal
Register notice (71 FR 78472) and
which was published in an October 5,
2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR
58884). The October 5, 2006, NSHC
analysis is reproduced below:
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not
Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated
The proposed change allows relocating
main steam and main feedwater valve
isolation times to the Licensee Controlled
Document that is referenced in the Bases.
The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF–491
related to relocating the main steam and
main feedwater valves isolation times to the
Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases and replacing the
isolation time with the phase ‘‘within limits.’’
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main
steam and main feedwater isolation valve
times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The
requirements to perform the testing of these
isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future
changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled
document will be evaluated pursuant to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, test
and experiments,’’ to ensure that such
changes do not result in more than minimal
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect
the ability of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended
safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed changes do
not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated. Further, the
proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that
may be released, nor significantly increase
individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not
Create the Possibility of a New or Different
Kind of Accident From Any Previously
Evaluated
The proposed changes relocate the main
steam and main feedwater valve isolation
times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. In addition,
the valve isolation times are replaced in the
TS with the phase ‘‘within limits.’’ The
changes do not involve a physical altering of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation.
The requirements in the TS continue to
require testing of the main steam and main
feedwater isolation valves to ensure the
proper functioning of these isolation valves.
Therefore, the changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not
Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin
of Safety
The proposed changes relocate the main
steam and main feedwater valve isolation
times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. In addition,
the valve isolation times are replaced in the
TS with the phase ‘‘within limits.’’ Instituting
the proposed changes will continue to ensure
the testing of main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or
license controlled document are performed
in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This
approach provides an effective level of
regulatory control and ensures that main
steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is
conducted such that there is no significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the
isolation valves is unaffected by the proposed
changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main
steam and main feedwater isolation valves.
The proposed changes maintain sufficient
controls to preserve the current margins of
safety.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NRC staff has reviewed the above
analysis and, based on this review, it
appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the
NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro,
Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel, Indiana
Michigan Power Company, One Cook
Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC,
Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: February
23, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would adopt
an approved change to the standard
technical specifications (TSs) for
General Electric Plants, BWR/4
(NUREG–1433), to allow relocation of
specific TS surveillance frequencies to a
licensee controlled program. The
proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–425, Revision 3
(Rev. 3) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090850642) related to the Relocation
of Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control-RITSTF (Risk-Informed TSTF)
Initiative 5b and was described in the
Notice of Availability published in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR
31996).
The proposed change is consistent
with NRC-approved Industry/Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler,
TSTF–425, Rev. 3, ‘‘Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control-RITSTF Initiative 5b.’’ The
proposed change relocates surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled
program, the Surveillance Frequency
Control Program (SFCP). This change is
applicable to licensees using
probabilistic risk guidelines contained
in NRC-approved NEI 04–10, ‘‘RiskInformed Technical Specifications
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for
Control of Surveillance Frequencies,’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456).
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the
specified frequencies for periodic
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
surveillance requirements to licensee control
under a new program—the SFCP.
Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator
to any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not significantly
increased. The systems and components
required by the Technical Specifications (TS)
for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable,
meet the acceptance criteria for the
surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed
in the accident analysis. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from
utilizing the proposed change. The changes
do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change in
the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not
impose any new or different requirements.
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes
are consistent with the safety analysis
assumption and current plant operating
practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods,
and acceptance criteria for systems,
structures, and components (SSCs), specified
in applicable codes and standards (or
alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the
plant licensing basis (including the final
safety analysis report and Bases to TS), since
these are not affected by changes to the
surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance
criteria as described in the plant licensing
basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated
surveillance frequency, NextEra Energy
Duane Arnold will perform a probabilistic
risk evaluation using the guidance contained
in NRC approved NEI 04–10, Rev. 1 in
accordance with the SFCP. NEI 04–10, Rev.
1, methodology provides reasonable
acceptance guidelines and methods for
evaluating the risk increase of proposed
changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Marjan
Mashhadi, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (the
Licensee), Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–
301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2,
Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin.
Date of amendment request: March
23, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment consists of
replacing non-conservative values for
five operating limits in the Technical
Specifications with more conservative
values that incorporate measurement
uncertainty. Additionally, one of the
operating limits will replace a volume
expressed in cubic feet with a volume
expressed in tank percent level to allow
the plant operators a direct verification
of the technical specification limit based
on instrument readings.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes clarify the
requirements for five plant operating limits
by incorporating measurement uncertainties
in the Technical Specification values to
ensure the parameters remain within the
ranges assumed in the accident analysis. The
parameters are not accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change will not
increase the probability of an accident
previously evaluated. Maintaining the
parameters within the ranges specified in the
Technical Specifications ensures that the
systems will respond as assumed to mitigate
the accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change will not
increase the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new
or different type of equipment will be
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28475
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis, but ensures that plant
operating parameters will be maintained as
assumed in the accident analysis. The
proposed change is consistent with the
accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment clarifies the
requirements for plant operating limits by
incorporating instrument uncertainties to
ensure the parameters remain within the
initial operating limits or ranges assumed in
the accident analysis. No change is made to
the accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change
would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair,
Senior Attorney, NextEra Energy Point
Beach, LLC, P. O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1
and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: February
17, 2011, as supplemented on April 21,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.1, ‘‘Main Steam Safety Valves
(MSSVs),’’ Table 3.7.1–1, ‘‘Maximum
Allowable Power Range Neutron Flux
High Setpoint With Inoperable MSSVs,’’
and the Bases section for the MSSVs.
This license amendment request
proposed to remove a one-time note
listed in TS Table 3.7.1–1, specific to
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit No. 2
for Cycle 15, that is no longer applicable
or needed. This license amendment
request also proposes to revise the TS
Bases B 3.7.1 to reflect a new analysis
methodology for establishing the
reduced Power Range Neutron Flux
High setpoint for one inoperable MSSV
as listed in TS Table 3.7.1–1. The
supplement dated April 21, 2011,
proposes to revise the Final Safety
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
28476
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis Report Update (FSARU)
Sections 15.2.7.3 and 15.2.16 to reflect
the proposed changes to the TS Bases.
The supplement provided additional
information that clarified the
application and did not expand the
scope of the February 17, 2011,
application.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
This License Amendment Request (LAR)
proposes to remove a one-time Unit 2 Cycle
15 Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
exemption that is no longer applicable and
revise the safety analysis performed in
support of Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1,
‘‘Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs),’’ Table
3.7.1–1, ‘‘Maximum Allowable Power Range
Neutron Flux High Setpoint with Inoperable
MSSVs’’ for one inoperable MSSV. The
revised safety analysis resolves a
nonconforming condition associated with the
TS 3.7.1 Bases and re-establishes that the
Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint of
87 percent Rated Thermal Power (RTP)
continues to provide adequate protection for
one inoperable MSSV on each steam lead.
The Power Range Neutron Flux High
setpoint TS value does not initiate an
accident. Technician adjustments to lower
the Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint
could cause a reactor trip; however, this
action is already a TS requirement. There has
been no change in the TS setpoint value from
the current value or in the requirement for a
technician to adjust the setpoints downward
when MSSVs become inoperable.
Therefore, this proposed change will not
increase the probability of a reactor trip.
The revised TS B 3.7.1 safety analyses
establishes that the current Power Range
Neutron Flux High setpoint of 87 percent
with one inoperable MSSV on each loop will
ensure the remaining MSSVs will continue to
prevent overpressure of the main steam leads
and steam generators, and remove adequate
heat from the RCS [reactor coolant system].
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
The revised safety analysis which credits
the Class 1 Over Temperature Delta
Temperature (OTDT) reactor trip and the
Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint TS
value with one inoperable MSSV do not
initiate an accident and do not change the
method by which any safety-related system
performs its function.
The proposed change does not result in
plant operation outside the limits previously
considered, nor allow the progression of
transients or accidents in a manner different
than previously considered.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed change and revised safety
analysis demonstrate that all applicable
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and steam
generator (SG) pressure boundary acceptance
criteria are satisfied, and re-establish that the
existing Power Range Neutron Flux High
setpoint TS value for one inoperable MSSV
remains conservatively bounding.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
With the proposed change, the MSSVs will
prevent SG pressure from exceeding 110
percent of SG design pressure in accordance
with the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers code. The conclusions for the Final
Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are
unaffected by the change, remain valid, and
provide margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post,
Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California
94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
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 amendment request: March
14, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the licenses and the Technical
Specifications regarding Residual Heat
Removal (RHR) and Coolant CirculationLow Water Level, specifically, to allow
one RHR loop to be inoperable for up to
2 hours for surveillance testing provided
the other RHR loop is operable and in
operation. The proposed change is
described in Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler TSTF–361–A,
Revision 2, ‘‘Allow standby SDC/RHR/
DHR [shut down cooling/residual heat
removal/decay heat removal] loop to
[be] inoperable to support testing,’’
approved for use by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in a letter dated
October 31, 2000 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System, Accession No. ML003775261).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 adds an LCO
[Limiting Condition for Operations] Note to
LCO 3.9.6, ‘‘RHR and Coolant CirculationLow Water Level,’’ to allow one RHR loop to
be inoperable for up to 2 hours for
surveillance testing provided the other RHR
loop is Operable and in operation. An
inoperable RHR train is not an initiator to
any accident previously evaluated. The RHR
trains are not credited with mitigating any
accident previously evaluated in Mode 6. As
a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any 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 does not involve a
physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new
or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change to the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
changes do not alter the assumptions made
in the safety analysis. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, this proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds an LCO Note to
LCO 3.9.6, ‘‘RHR and Coolant CirculationLow Water Level,’’ to allow one RHR loop to
be inoperable for up to 2 hours for
surveillance testing provided the other RHR
loop is Operable and in operation. This
allowance currently appears in Specification
3.4.7 and 3.4.8 and the conditions under
which the Note would be applied in
Specification 3.9.6 are not significantly
different from those specifications. The Note
is needed in LCO 3.9.6 to provide the
flexibility to perform surveillance testing
while ensuring that there is reasonable time
for operators to respond to and mitigate any
expected failures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H.
Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30308–2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry
Power Station, Unit 1 and 2, Surry
County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 12,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed revision is an
administrative change that: (1) Corrects
an error in TS 3.12.E.5, (2) deletes
duplicative requirements in TS 3.12.E.2
and TS 3.12.E.4, (3) relocates the
shutdown margin value in TS 3.12 and
the TS 3.12 Basis to the Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR), and (4) expands
the TS 6.2 list of parameters defined in
the COLR.
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 license amendment
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change is administrative
in nature. The proposed LAR does not
involve a physical change to any structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) at Surry
Power Station; nor does it change any of the
previously evaluated accidents in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR).
Thus, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change is administrative
in nature. The proposed change does not
involve a physical change to any SSCs, and
there is no impact on their design function.
The proposed change does not affect
initiators of analyzed events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
introduce any new failures that could create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed change is administrative
in nature. Margin of safety is established
through the design of plant SSCs, the
parameters within which the plant is
operated, and the establishment of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
setpoints for the actuation of equipment
relied upon to respond to an event. The
proposed change does not impact the
condition or performance of SSCs relied
upon for accident mitigation or any safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28477
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) online at the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket
No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power Station,
Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment:
April 13, 2010, as supplemented by a
letter dated January 18, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
licensee proposed to revise section
3.1.a.1.C, ‘‘Reactor Coolant Pumps,’’
section 3.1.a.3, ‘‘Pressurizer Safety
Valves,’’ and section 3.1.b, ‘‘Heatup and
Normal Cooldown Limit Curves for
Normal Operation,’’ of the Technical
Specifications (TS), as described in its
application of April 13, 2010. After
conversion of the TS to Improved
Technical Specifications (ITS), the
affected information was contained in
ITS section 3.4.3, ‘‘Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) Pressure and Temperature
(P–T, or equivalently P/T) Limits’’, ITS
section 3.4.5, ‘‘RCS Loops—MODE 3’’,
ITS section 3.4.6, ‘‘RCS Loops—MODE
4’’, ITS section 3.4.10, ‘‘Pressurizer
Safety Valves’’, ITS 3.4.12, ‘‘Low
Temperature Overpressure Protection
(LTOP) System’’, and ITS section 3.5.2,
‘‘ECCS—Operating,’’ as described in the
licensee’s supplement of January 18,
2011. Specifically, the proposed
amendment would replace the heatup
and cooldown pressure-temperature (P–
T) limit curves with new ones, and
specify a higher LTOP enabling
temperature. The supplement also
provided additional restrictions on RCS
mass addition until the reactor coolant
system cold leg temperature exceeded
356 °F, consistent with Improved
Standard Technical Specifications.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 208.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37473).
The supplement dated January 18, 2011,
provided additional information that
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
28478
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application, and did not
change the Commission’s proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2,
Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment:
March 31, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated June 23, June 24, August 9,
and September 16, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment modified the requirements
of the Technical Specification
definitions, requirements, and
terminology related to the use of an
Alternate Source Term (AST) associated
with accident offsite and control room
dose consequences. In addition,
implementation of the AST supports
adoption of the control room envelope
habitability controls in accordance with
NRC-approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF)-448, Revision 3,
‘‘Control Room Habitability.’’
Date of issuance: April 26, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 293.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR 37475).
The supplemental letters dated June 23,
June 24, August 9, and September 16,
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 April 26, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment:
November 8, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
Specifications to be consistent with the
NRC-approved Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF–493, ‘‘Clarify Application of
Setpoint Methodology for LSSS
[Limiting Safety System Setting]
Functions,’’ Revision 4, Option A. Under
Option A, two surveillance notes are
added to TS Table 3.3.5.1–1,
‘‘Emergency Core Cooling System
Instrumentation,’’ Function 3.d,
‘‘Condensate Storage Tank Level—Low,’’
and to TS Table 3.3.5.2–1, ‘‘Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling System
Instrumentation,’’ Function 3,
‘‘Condensate Storage Tank Level—Low,’’
for the suction swap from the
condensate storage tank (CST) to the
suppression pool function for the high
pressure core spray and reactor core
isolation cooling function, respectively.
Specifically, surveillance notes would
be added to surveillance requirements
that require verifying trip setpoint
setting values (i.e., channel calibration
and trip unit calibration). The
amendment completes a commitment
made by the licensee to address an
unresolved issue associated with TS
Amendment No. 181 for the CST levellow setpoint change approved by the
NRC in its letter dated February 25,
2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090290209).
Date of issuance: April 27, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 185.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
29: The amendment revises the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 28, 2010 (75 FR
81670).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2
(BVPS–2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
April 9, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated June 15, 2009, January 18,
2010, March 18, 2010, May 3, 2010, May
21, 2010, June 1, 2010, August 9, 2010,
October 7, 2010, October 18, 2010,
January 5, 2011, February 18, 2011,
March 18, 2011, and March 21, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment modified Technical
Specifications (TSs) to support the
replacement of existing Boraflex
neutron absorber fuel storage racks in
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the BVPS–2 spent fuel pool with new
high density, Metamic neutron absorber
fuel storage racks, which will increase
the total storage locations from 1,088 to
1,690.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No: 173.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
73: The amendment revised the License
and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 11, 2010 (75 FR 11566).
The supplements dated June 15, 2009,
January 18, 2010, March 18, 2010, May
3, 2010, May 21, 2010, June 1, 2010,
August 9, 2010, October 7, 2010,
October 18, 2010, January 5, 2011,
February 18, 2011, March 18, 2011, and
March 21, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments:
April 7, 2009, as supplemented by
letters dated October 17, 2008; April 8,
June 17 (2 letters), August 24,
September 11, September 25, October 9,
November 13, November 20 (2 letters),
November 21 (2 letters), December 8,
December 16, December 21, and
December 22 of 2009; January 7, January
8, January 13, January 22, January 29,
February 11, February 12, February 25,
March 3, March 24, March 25, April 15,
April 21, April 22, April 26, April 28 (2
letters), April 29, April 30, May 6, May
13, May 14, May 20, June 10 (2 letters),
June 11, June 14, June 24, July 8 (2
letters), July 15 (2 letters), July 21, July
23, July 27, July 28, July 29, August 2,
August 6, August 9 (2 letters), August
12, August 23, August 24 (2 letters),
August 26, September 1, September 8,
September 9, September 14, September
21, September 27, September 28 (3
letters), October 1, October 12, October
14, October 15, October 28, November 1,
November 4, November 12 (2 letters),
November 15, November 30, December
1, December 7, December 10 (2 letters),
December 13, December 15, December
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2011 / Notices
21 (2 letters), and December 30 of 2010;
January 7 (2 letters), January 11, January
13, January 21, February 22, March 2,
and March 4 of 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
proposed amendments would increase
the licensed core power level for PBNP
Units 1 and 2 from 1540 megawatts
thermal (MWt) to 1800 MWt. The
increase in core thermal power will be
approximately 17 percent over the
current licensed thermal power level
and is defined as an Extended Power
Uprate (EPU). The proposed
amendments would change the
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses,
the Technical Specifications (TSs) and
licensing bases to support operation at
the increased core thermal power level,
including changes to the maximum
licensed reactor core thermal power,
reactor core safety limits, Constant Axial
Offset Control (CAOC) operating
strategy, Reactor Protection System
(RPS) and Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System (ESFAS) Limited
Safety System Settings (LSSSs) and
diesel generator (DG) start loss of
voltage time delays. Additional TS
changes include Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) flow rate, pressurizer operating
level, pressurizer safety valve settings,
accumulator and refueling water storage
tank boron concentrations, main steam
safety valve maximum allowable power
level and lift settings, new Main
Feedwater Isolation Valves (MFIVs), and
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
references.
The review of the EPU LAR will
include the changes to the HELB
methodology to verify compliance with
the licensing basis and acceptability for
EPU conditions. The HELB evaluations
have been re-evaluated at EPU
conditions using the following: (1)
Implementation of NRC Generic Letter
(GL) 87–11, ‘‘Relaxation in Arbitrary
Intermediate Pipe Rupture
Requirements,’’ dated June 19, 1987, and
Branch Technical Position MEB 3–1,
‘‘Postulated Rupture Locations in Fluid
System Piping Inside and Outside
Containment,’’ Revision 2, dated June
1987, (2) mass and energy released from
a HELB, (3) compartment pressurization
transient evaluation following a HELB
event, (4) jet impingement from streams
following a HELB event, and (5)
operator response time evaluation.
Date of issuance: May 3, 2011.
Effective date: Unit 1—As of the date
of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to Unit 1 startup from the Fall
2011 refueling outage. Unit 2—As of the
date of issuance and shall be
implemented prior to startup from the
Spring 2011 refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.: 241, 245.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 May 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27: Amendments
revise the License, Appendix C, and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 17, 2010 (75 FR
70305).
The supplemental letters contained
clarifying information and did not
change the staff’s initial proposed
finding of no significant hazards
consideration.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: June 28,
2010.
Description of amendment request:
This amendment revises the Seabrook
Technical Specifications (TSs) by
deleting TS 3/4.8.4.2, ‘‘Containment
Penetration Conductor Overcurrent
Protective Devices and Protective
Devices for Class 1E Sources Connected
to Non-Class 1E Circuits,’’ and relocates
the information to the Seabrook
Technical Requirements Manual.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 125.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
86: The amendment revised the TS and
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 2, 2010 (75 FR
67403).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 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: June 28,
2010.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ‘‘Control Room
Makeup and Cleanup Filtration
System,’’ to add shutdown actions if the
required actions for an inoperable
control room envelope (CRE) boundary
were not met. The amendments also
added a note to the required action for
an inoperable CRE boundary to clarify
that the boundary is not a required
system, subsystem, train, component, or
device that depends on a diesel
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
28479
generator as a source of emergency
power.
Date of issuance: April 25, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—195; Unit
2—183.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
76 and NPF–80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 21, 2010 (75 FR
57529).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281,
Surry Power Station, Unit 1 and 2, Surry
County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments:
March 30, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated August 23, 2010, and
March 4, 2011.
Brief Description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications by relocating specific
surveillance frequency requirements to
a licensee-controlled document using a
risk-informed justification.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—273 and
Unit 2—272.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments
change the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 10, 2010 (75 FR 48377).
The supplements dated August 23,
2010, and March 4, 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 April 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of May 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–11804 Filed 5–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\17MYN1.SGM
17MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28470-28479]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11804]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0104]
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 April 21, 2011 to May 4, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 24926).
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
[[Page 28471]]
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 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/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a
hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
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
[[Page 28472]]
establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if
the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at 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 the NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
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 Library online at 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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 7, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add
an applicability period of 42.1 effective full power years (EFPY) to TS
LCO 3.4.3, figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 which contain the pressure-
temperature (P/T) limit curves for primary coolant system (PCS) heatup
and cooldown, and limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.4.12 figure
3.4.12-1, which contains the low temperature overpressure protection
(LTOP) setpoint limit curve.
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.
No changes are being made to the existing pressure-temperature
(P/T) limit curves in TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.4.3
[[Page 28473]]
Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 and the low temperature overpressure
(LTOP) setpoint limit curve in LCO 3.4.12 Figure 3.4.12-1. The P/T
limits curves and the LTOP setpoint limit curve are only being
revised to add the applicability period of 42.1 effective full power
years. This applicability period has been verified to be
conservative for operation through the expiration of the operating
license on March 24, 2031.
The changes to the TS figures are applicable to normal plant
operations and do not influence the probability of occurrence or
safety analysis considerations for design basis accidents.
Consequently, there will be no change to the probability or
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. Operating the
facility in accordance with the P/T limit and LTOP setpoint limit
curves ensures that stresses caused by the thermal gradient through
the RV beltline material remain bounded by the stress analyses. The
proposed amendment does not involve operation of required
structures, systems, or components in a manner or configuration
different than previously recognized or evaluated. No radiological
barriers are affected by the change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No changes are being made to the existing P/T limit curves in TS
Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 and or in the existing LTOP setpoint
limit curves in TS Figure 3.4.12-1. The TS figures are only being
changed to add the applicability period of 42.1 effective full power
years for the P/T limits and LTOP setpoint limit curves. Adding the
applicability periods to the TS figures will not create the
possibility of any new or different kind of accidents.
The change does not involve a modification of plant structures,
systems, or components. The change will not affect the manner in
which the plant is operated and will not degrade the reliability of
structures, systems, or components. Equipment protection features
will not be deleted or modified, equipment redundancy or
independence will not be reduced, and supporting system performance
will not be affected. No new failure modes or mechanisms will be
introduced as a result of this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 describes the conditions that
require P/T limits and provides the general bases for these limits.
Operating limits based on the criteria of Appendix G, as defined by
applicable regulations, codes and standards, provide reasonable
assurance that non-ductile or rapidly propagating failure will not
occur. The P/T limits are prescribed for all plant modes to avoid
encountering pressure, temperature, and temperature rate of change
conditions that might cause undetected flaws to propagate and cause
non-ductile failure of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
Calculation of P/T limits in accordance with the criteria of
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 and applicable regulatory requirements
ensures that adequate margins of safety are maintained and there is
no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
No change is being made to the existing P/T limit curves or LTOP
setpoint curve. Only the applicability period associated with the P/
T Limits and LTOP setpoints is being extended. Since the P/T limits
and LTOP setpoint limits remain unchanged there is no reduction in a
margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. There is no change or impact on any safety
analysis assumption or on any other parameter affecting the course
of an accident analysis supporting the basis of any Technical
Specification. The proposed change does not involve any increase in
calculated off-site dose consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit
for restoring inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable and make conforming TS Bases changes. These changes are
consistent with NRC-approved Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) Change Traveler
TSTF-514, ``Revise BWR Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS
Leakage Instrumentation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation
monitor is the drywell atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The
monitoring of RCS leakage is not a precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. The monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to
mitigate the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the drywell atmospheric
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be
detected before it potentially results in gross failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three
[[Page 28474]]
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (the Licensee), Docket Nos. 50-315 and
50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCCNP-1), Berrien
County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 18, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS), removing the specific
isolation time for the main steam and main feedwater isolation valves
(MSIVs) from Surveillance Requirements 3.7.2.1, 3.7.3.1, and 3.7.3.2.
These changes were previously approved generically by the NRC staff and
are tracked as Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-491.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee
incorporated by reference the no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) analysis endorsed by the NRC staff in a December 29, 2006,
Federal Register notice (71 FR 78472) and which was published in an
October 5, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 58884). The October 5,
2006, NSHC analysis is reproduced below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change allows relocating main steam and main
feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change
Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main
feedwater valves isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time
with the phase ``within limits.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valve times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of
these isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future changes to the
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments,''
to ensure that such changes do not result in more than minimal
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phase ``within limits.'' The changes do
not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TS
continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation
valves.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phase ``within limits.'' Instituting the
proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main steam
and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or license
controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and
ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is
conducted such that there is no significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is
unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls
to preserve the current margins of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the above analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James M. Petro, Jr., Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: February 23, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
adopt an approved change to the standard technical specifications (TSs)
for General Electric Plants, BWR/4 (NUREG-1433), to allow relocation of
specific TS surveillance frequencies to a licensee controlled program.
The proposed change is described in Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3 (Rev. 3) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090850642) related to the Relocation of Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control-RITSTF (Risk-Informed TSTF) Initiative 5b and was
described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal
Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996).
The proposed change is consistent with NRC-approved Industry/
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler, TSTF-425, Rev. 3,
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-RITSTF
Initiative 5b.'' The proposed change relocates surveillance frequencies
to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP). This change is applicable to licensees using
probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI 04-10,
``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed
Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies,'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML071360456).
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic
[[Page 28475]]
surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new program--
the SFCP. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
systems and components required by the Technical Specifications (TS)
for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still
required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the
surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any
mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result,
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumption and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and Bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, NextEra
Energy Duane Arnold will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation
using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in
accordance with the SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides
reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk
increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent
with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Marjan Mashhadi, 801 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (the Licensee), Docket Nos. 50-266 and
50-301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin.
Date of amendment request: March 23, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment consists
of replacing non-conservative values for five operating limits in the
Technical Specifications with more conservative values that incorporate
measurement uncertainty. Additionally, one of the operating limits will
replace a volume expressed in cubic feet with a volume expressed in
tank percent level to allow the plant operators a direct verification
of the technical specification limit based on instrument readings.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes clarify the requirements for five plant
operating limits by incorporating measurement uncertainties in the
Technical Specification values to ensure the parameters remain
within the ranges assumed in the accident analysis. The parameters
are not accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change will not
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
Maintaining the parameters within the ranges specified in the
Technical Specifications ensures that the systems will respond as
assumed to mitigate the accidents previously evaluated. Therefore,
the proposed change will not increase the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis, but ensures that plant operating parameters will be
maintained as assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change
is consistent with the accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment clarifies the requirements for plant
operating limits by incorporating instrument uncertainties to ensure
the parameters remain within the initial operating limits or ranges
assumed in the accident analysis. No change is made to the accident
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: February 17, 2011, as supplemented on
April 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves
(MSSVs),'' Table 3.7.1-1, ``Maximum Allowable Power Range Neutron Flux
High Setpoint With Inoperable MSSVs,'' and the Bases section for the
MSSVs. This license amendment request proposed to remove a one-time
note listed in TS Table 3.7.1-1, specific to Diablo Canyon Power Plant,
Unit No. 2 for Cycle 15, that is no longer applicable or needed. This
license amendment request also proposes to revise the TS Bases B 3.7.1
to reflect a new analysis methodology for establishing the reduced
Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint for one inoperable MSSV as
listed in TS Table 3.7.1-1. The supplement dated April 21, 2011,
proposes to revise the Final Safety
[[Page 28476]]
Analysis Report Update (FSARU) Sections 15.2.7.3 and 15.2.16 to reflect
the proposed changes to the TS Bases. The supplement provided
additional information that clarified the application and did not
expand the scope of the February 17, 2011, application.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
This License Amendment Request (LAR) proposes to remove a one-
time Unit 2 Cycle 15 Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
exemption that is no longer applicable and revise the safety
analysis performed in support of Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1,
``Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs),'' Table 3.7.1-1, ``Maximum
Allowable Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint with Inoperable
MSSVs'' for one inoperable MSSV. The revised safety analysis
resolves a nonconforming condition associated with the TS 3.7.1
Bases and re-establishes that the Power Range Neutron Flux High
setpoint of 87 percent Rated Thermal Power (RTP) continues to
provide adequate protection for one inoperable MSSV on each steam
lead.
The Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint TS value does not
initiate an accident. Technician adjustments to lower the Power
Range Neutron Flux High setpoint could cause a reactor trip;
however, this action is already a TS requirement. There has been no
change in the TS setpoint value from the current value or in the
requirement for a technician to adjust the setpoints downward when
MSSVs become inoperable.
Therefore, this proposed change will not increase the
probability of a reactor trip.
The revised TS B 3.7.1 safety analyses establishes that the
current Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint of 87 percent with
one inoperable MSSV on each loop will ensure the remaining MSSVs
will continue to prevent overpressure of the main steam leads and
steam generators, and remove adequate heat from the RCS [reactor
coolant system].
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The revised safety analysis which credits the Class 1 Over
Temperature Delta Temperature (OTDT) reactor trip and the Power
Range Neutron Flux High setpoint TS value with one inoperable MSSV
do not initiate an accident and do not change the method by which
any safety-related system performs its function.
The proposed change does not result in plant operation outside
the limits previously considered, nor allow the progression of
transients or accidents in a manner different than previously
considered.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed change and revised safety analysis demonstrate that
all applicable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) and steam generator (SG)
pressure boundary acceptance criteria are satisfied, and re-
establish that the existing Power Range Neutron Flux High setpoint
TS value for one inoperable MSSV remains conservatively bounding.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a
margin of safety.
With the proposed change, the MSSVs will prevent SG pressure
from exceeding 110 percent of SG design pressure in accordance with
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code. The conclusions
for the Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are
unaffected by the change, remain valid, and provide margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 amendment request: March 14, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the licenses and the Technical Specifications regarding Residual
Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant Circulation-Low Water Level,
specifically, to allow one RHR loop to be inoperable for up to 2 hours
for surveillance testing provided the other RHR loop is operable and in
operation. The proposed change is described in Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler TSTF-361-A, Revision 2, ``Allow standby SDC/RHR/DHR
[shut down cooling/residual heat removal/decay heat removal] loop to
[be] inoperable to support testing,'' approved for use by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in a letter dated October 31, 2000 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System, Accession No. ML003775261).
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 adds an LCO [Limiting Condition for
Operations] Note to LCO 3.9.6, ``RHR and Coolant Circulation-Low
Water Level,'' to allow one RHR loop to be inoperable for up to 2
hours for surveillance testing provided the other RHR loop is
Operable and in operation. An inoperable RHR train is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. The RHR trains are
not credited with mitigating any accident previously evaluated in
Mode 6. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any 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 does not involve a physical alteration to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds an LCO Note to LCO 3.9.6, ``RHR and
Coolant Circulation-Low Water Level,'' to allow one RHR loop to be
inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing provided the
other RHR loop is Operable and in operation. This allowance
currently appears in Specification 3.4.7 and 3.4.8 and the
conditions under which the Note would be applied in Specification
3.9.6 are not significantly different from those specifications. The
Note is needed in LCO 3.9.6 to provide the flexibility to perform
surveillance testing while ensuring that there is reasonable time
for operators to respond to and mitigate any expected failures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
[[Page 28477]]
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308-2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed revision is an
administrative change that: (1) Corrects an error in TS 3.12.E.5, (2)
deletes duplicative requirements in TS 3.12.E.2 and TS 3.12.E.4, (3)
relocates the shutdown margin value in TS 3.12 and the TS 3.12 Basis to
the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), and (4) expands the TS 6.2
list of parameters defined in the COLR.
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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change is administrative in nature. The
proposed LAR does not involve a physical change to any structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) at Surry Power Station; nor does it
change any of the previously evaluated accidents in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
No. The proposed change is administrative in nature. The
proposed change does not involve a physical change to any SSCs, and
there is no impact on their design function. The proposed change
does not affect initiators of analyzed events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not introduce any new
failures that could create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed change is administrative in nature. Margin of
safety is established through the design of plant SSCs, the
parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment
of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to
respond to an event. The proposed change does not impact the
condition or performance of SSCs relied upon for accident mitigation
or any safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Gloria Kulesa.
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) online at the
NRC Library at 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.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: April 13, 2010, as supplemented
by a letter dated January 18, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The licensee proposed to revise
section 3.1.a.1.C, ``Reactor Coolant Pumps,'' section 3.1.a.3,
``Pressurizer Safety Valves,'' and section 3.1.b, ``Heatup and Normal
Cooldown Limit Curves for Normal Operation,'' of the Technical
Specifications (TS), as described in its application of April 13, 2010.
After conversion of the TS to Improved Technical Specifications (ITS),
the affected information was contained in ITS section 3.4.3, ``Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) Pressure and Temperature (P-T, or equivalently P/
T) Limits'', ITS section 3.4.5, ``RCS Loops--MODE 3'', ITS section
3.4.6, ``RCS Loops--MODE 4'', ITS section 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety
Valves'', ITS 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP)
System'', and ITS section 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Operating,'' as described in
the licensee's supplement of January 18, 2011. Specifically, the
proposed amendment would replace the heatup and cooldown pressure-
temperature (P-T) limit curves with new ones, and specify a higher LTOP
enabling temperature. The supplement also provided additional
restrictions on RCS mass addition until the reactor coolant system cold
leg temperature exceeded 356 [deg]F, consistent with Improved Standard
Technical Specifications.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 208.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR
37473). The supplement dated January 18, 2011, provided additional
information that
[[Page 28478]]
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application,
and did not change the Commission's proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: March 31, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated June 23, June 24, August 9, and September 16, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
requirements of the Technical Specification definitions, requirements,
and terminology related to the use of an Alternate Source Term (AST)
associated with accident offsite and control room dose consequences. In
addition, implementation of the AST supports adoption of the control
room envelope habitability controls in accordance with NRC-approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-448, Revision 3, ``Control
Room Habitability.''
Date of issuance: April 26, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 293.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (75 FR
37475). The supplemental letters dated June 23, June 24, August 9, and
September 16, 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 April 26, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: November 8, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to be consistent with the NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-493, ``Clarify
Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System
Setting] Functions,'' Revision 4, Option A. Under Option A, two
surveillance notes are added to TS Table 3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core
Cooling System Instrumentation,'' Function 3.d, ``Condensate Storage
Tank Level--Low,'' and to TS Table 3.3.5.2-1, ``Reactor Core Isolation
Cooling System Instrumentation,'' Function 3, ``Condensate Storage Tank
Level--Low,'' for the suction swap from the condensate storage tank
(CST) to the suppression pool function for the high pressure core spray
and reactor core isolation cooling function, respectively.
Specifically, surveillance notes would be added to surveillance
requirements that require verifying trip setpoint setting values (i.e.,
channel calibration and trip unit calibration). The amendment completes
a commitment made by the licensee to address an unresolved issue
associated with TS Amendment No. 181 for the CST level-low setpoint
change approved by the NRC in its letter dated February 25, 2009 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML090290209).
Date of issuance: April 27, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 185.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revises the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 28, 2010 (75
FR 81670).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BVPS-2), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: April 9, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated June 15, 2009, January 18, 2010, March 18, 2010, May
3, 2010, May 21, 2010, June 1, 2010, August 9, 2010, October 7, 2010,
October 18, 2010, January 5, 2011, February 18, 2011, March 18, 2011,
and March 21, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical
Specifications (TSs) to support the replacement of existing Boraflex
neutron absorber fuel storage racks in the BVPS-2 spent fuel pool with
new high density, Metamic neutron absorber fuel storage racks, which
will increase the total storage locations from 1,088 to 1,690.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No: 173.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: The amendment revised the
License and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (75 FR
11566). The supplements dated June 15, 2009, January 18, 2010, March
18, 2010, May 3, 2010, May 21, 2010, June 1, 2010, August 9, 2010,
October 7, 2010, October 18, 2010, January 5, 2011, February 18, 2011,
March 18, 2011, and March 21, 2011, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments: April 7, 2009, as supplemented
by letters dated October 17, 2008; April 8, June 17 (2 letters), August
24, September 11, September 25, October 9, November 13, November 20 (2
letters), November 21 (2 letters), December 8, December 16, December
21, and December 22 of 2009; January 7, January 8, January 13, January
22, January 29, February 11, February 12, February 25, March 3, March
24, March 25, April 15, April 21, April 22, April 26, April 28 (2
letters), April 29, April 30, May 6, May 13, May 14, May 20, June 10 (2
letters), June 11, June 14, June 24, July 8 (2 letters), July 15 (2
letters), July 21, July 23, July 27, July 28, July 29, August 2, Augu