Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 31369-31379 [2011-13211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
1,000 cultural heritage institutions
contribute to Opening History,
including about 500 libraries and 130
museums. This data collection will
survey reference service providers about
the perceptions of Opening History, its
quality and scope, and effectiveness in
meeting needs of their local user
communities. This collection is
necessary to achieve a thorough
understanding of how Opening History
is used by its target audience and to
determine the most effective use of
IMLS resources with respect to future
development of Opening History and
the IMLS DCC.
Current Actions: This notice proposes
clearance of the IMLS Digital
Collections and Content: An Assessment
of Opening History. The 60-day notice
for the IMLS Digital Collections and
Content: Opening History of Evaluation
was published in the Federal Register
on May 11, 2010, (FR vol. 75, No. 90,
pg. 26283). No comments were received.
Agency: Institute of Museum and
Library Services.
Title: IMLS Digital Collections and
Content: An Assessment of Opening
History.
OMB Number: To be determined.
Agency Number: 3137.
Frequency: One-time survey of no
more than 613 reference-service
providers.
Affected Public: General public,
libraries, museums.
Number of Respondents: 613.
Burden hours per respondent: .3/hr.
Total burden hours: 183.9.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: $23,922.
Total Costs: $4,921.16.
Contact: Comments should be sent to
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn.: OMB Desk Officer for
Education, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503, (202) 395–7316.
Dated: May 26, 2011.
Kim A. Miller,
Management Analyst, Institute of Museum
& Library Services.
[FR Doc. 2011–13481 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7036–01–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. NRC–2011–0034]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Review; Comment Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Notice of the OMB review of
information collection and solicitation
of public comment.
ACTION:
The NRC has recently
submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby
informs potential respondents that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
that a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The NRC published a Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period on this information collection on
February 18, 2011.
1. Type of submission, new, revision,
or extension: Extension.
2. The title of the information
collection: NRC Form 64, ‘‘Travel
Voucher’’ (Part 1); NRC Form 64A,
‘‘Travel Voucher’’ (Part 2); and NRC
Form 64B, ‘‘Optional Travel Voucher’’
(Part 2).
3. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0192.
4. The form number if applicable:
NRC Forms 64, 64A, 64B.
5. How often the collection is
required: On occasion.
6. Who will be required or asked to
report: Contractors, consultants and
invited NRC travelers who travel in the
course of conducting business for the
NRC.
7. An estimate of the number of
annual responses: 100.
8. The estimated number of annual
respondents: 100.
9. An estimate of the total number of
hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 100 (1 hour per
form).
10. Abstract: Consultants, contractors,
and those invited by the NRC to travel
(e.g., prospective employees) must file
travel vouchers and trip reports in order
to be reimbursed for their travel
expenses. The information collected
includes the name, address, social
security number, and the amount to be
reimbursed. Travel expenses that are
reimbursed are confined to those
expenses essential to the transaction of
official business for an approved trip.
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents, including the final
supporting statement, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room, Room O–1 F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. OMB
clearance requests are available at the
NRC worldwide Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doccomment/omb/. The
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31369
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be
directed to the OMB reviewer listed
below by June 30, 2011. Comments
received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be
given to comments received after this
date.
Christine J. Kymn, Desk Officer, Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(3150–0034), NEOB–10202, Office of
Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395–
4638.
The NRC Clearance Officer is
Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415–6258.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of May, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 2011–13304 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0117]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
Addresses: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2011–0117 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal rulemaking Web site, https://
www.regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed. You may submit
comments by any one of the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
31370
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2011–0117. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: 301–492–3668; e-mail:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available online in the NRC Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of the
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site:
Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching on Docket ID NRC–2011–
0117.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 May 5, 2011
to May 18, 2011. The last biweekly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
notice was published on May 17, 2011
(76 FR 28470).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), § 50.92, this
means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) Involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 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–
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0001, and should cite the publication
date and page number of this Federal
Register notice. Written comments may
also be faxed to the RADB at 301–492–
3446. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
’’Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the Commission’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. NRC
regulations are available online in the
NRC Library on the NRC Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, any hearing held would
take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
(10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) A
digital ID certificate, which allows the
participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through EIE, users will be
required to install a Web browser plugin from the NRC Web site. Further
information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31371
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 866–672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by first-
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31372
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
class mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
the presiding officer subsequently
determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/ unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment, which is
available for public inspection at the
Commission’s PDR, located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
documents created or received at the
NRC are available online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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.
Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50–341,
Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: April 8,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TS) to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 TS Bases changes
which reflect the proposed changes and
more accurately reflect the contents of
the facility design basis related to
operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are
consistent with NRC-approved Revision
3 to Technical Specification Task Force
Traveler (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specification Change Traveler
TSTF–514, ‘‘Revise BWR Operability
Requirements and Actions for RCS
Leakage Instrumentation.’’ The
availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on
December 17, 2010 (75 FR 79048) as
part of the consolidated line item
improvement process (CLIIP).
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 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
primary containment 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
primary containment atmospheric gaseous
radiation monitor. The proposed change does
not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
primary containment atmospheric gaseous
radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of
time the plant is allowed to operate with only
the primary containment 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
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: David G.
Pettinari, DTE Energy Senior Corporate
Attorney—Regulatory, 688 WCB, DTE
Energy, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI
48226–1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 3,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes are
administrative in nature and would
delete or modify existing license
conditions that have been completed or
are otherwise no longer in effect.
Approval of the proposed changes to the
Operating License would support the
Columbia license renewal effort.
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 amendment deletes license
conditions which are completed or are
otherwise obsolete. As such, the changes are
strictly administrative in nature. The changes
do not affect the manner by which the facility
is operated and do not change any facility
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
design feature, structure, system, or
component. The proposed changes do not
alter the design assumptions for the systems
or components used to mitigate the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, 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 amendment deletes license
conditions which are completed or are
otherwise obsolete. As such, the changes are
strictly administrative in nature. The changes
do not affect the manner by which the facility
is operated and do not change any facility
design feature, structure, system, or
component. No new or different type of
equipment will be installed.
Therefore, this change does 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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the Operating
License is administrative in nature and has
no impact on the margin of safety. The
changes do not affect any plant safety
parameters or setpoints. The license
conditions have been satisfied as required.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A.
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006–
3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of amendment request: April 11,
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 TS Bases changes
which reflect the proposed changes and
more accurately reflect the contents of
the facility design basis related to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are
consistent with NRC-approved Revision
3 to Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specification (STS) Change Traveler
TSTF–514, ‘‘Revise BWR [Boiling-Water
Reactor] Operability Requirements and
Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.’’ The availability of
this TS improvement was announced in
the Federal Register on December 17,
2010 (75 FR 79048), as part of the
consolidated line item improvement
process.
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 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 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 (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
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31373
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
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 A.
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006–
3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC, the licensee), et al.,
Docket No. 50–440, Perry Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), Lake County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: April 12,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the PNPP Technical Specifications (TSs)
to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS)
leakage detection instrumentation to
operable status and establish alternate
methods of monitoring RCS leakage
when one or more required monitors are
inoperable. The changes are consistent
with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF–514, Revision 3, ‘‘Revise
[Pressurized Water Reactor] PWR
Operability 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 (CFR) 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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 monitoring of RCS leakage is
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
31374
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
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 involved 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 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 (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 amendment 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, the proposed TS changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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: David W.
Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Florida Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St.
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March
11, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) to define
a new time limit for restoring inoperable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage
detection instrumentation to operable
status and to establish alternate methods
of monitoring RCS leakage when one or
more required monitors are inoperable.
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 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
containment atmosphere 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 the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation
monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection
capability that the probability of piping
evaluated and approved for Leak-BeforeBreak progressing to pipe rupture remains
extremely low.
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
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation
monitor. Reducing the amount of time the
plant is allowed to operate with only the
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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: M.S. Ross,
Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O.
Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408–
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Florida Power and Light Company,
Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade
County, Florida
Date of amendment request: February
21, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
relocate selected figures and values from
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to the
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
including TS Figure 2.1–1 cited in TS
2.1.1, selected portions of Note 1 on
Overtemperature Delta Temperature and
Note 3 on Overpower Delta Temperature
in cited TS Table 2.2–1, TS Figure 3.1–
1 cited in TS 3/4.1.1.1, Shutdown
Margin value cited in TS 3/4.1.1.2,
Moderator Temperature Coefficient
values cited in TS 3/4.1.1.3, and
Departure from Nucleate Boiling values
cited in TS 3.2.5. The description of the
COLR in TS 6.9.1.7 is also revised to
reflect these proposed changes. The
affected TS figures and technical limits
cited above are only being relocated to
the COLR and are not being changed
under this license amendment request.
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 to relocate cyclespecific parameters from TS to the COLR are
administrative in nature and do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facilities or the manner
in which the units are operated. The
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
ability of structures, systems or components
to perform their intended function to mitigate
the consequences of an initiating event
within the acceptance limits assumed in the
PTN [Turkey Point Plant] Updated Final
Safety Report (UFSAR).
The subject parameter limits will continue
to be administratively controlled in
accordance with Technical Specification
6.9.1.7. Specifically, this TS requires the
COLR to be submitted to the NRC each reload
cycle, including any mid-cycle revisions or
supplements.
Therefore, 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 changes do not alter the
design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facilities or the manner
in which the units are operated. The
proposed changes have no adverse impact on
component or system interactions. The
proposed changes will not degrade the ability
of systems, structures or components
important to safety to perform their safety
function nor change the response of any
system, structure or component important to
safety as described in the PTN UFSAR. The
proposed changes are administrative in
nature and do not change the level of
programmatic and procedural details that
assure safe operation of the facilities.
Since there are no changes to the design
assumptions, parameters, conditions and
configuration of the facilities, or the manner
in which the plants are operated and
surveilled, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in the margin of
safety?
Response: No.
There is no adverse impact on equipment
design or operation and there are no changes
being made to Technical Specification cyclespecific parameter limits themselves that
would adversely affect plant safety. The
proposed changes are administrative in
nature and impose alternative procedural and
programmatic controls on these parameter
limits in accordance with the Commission’s
position established by Generic Letter 88–16
(Reference 1). Any needed changes to these
limits will continue to be submitted to the
NRC in accordance with TS 6.9.1.7
requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
Based on the above discussion, FPL has
determined that the proposed change does
not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross,
Attorney, Florida Power & Light, P.O.
Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408–
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request:
December 29, 2010.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would delete the
Seabrook Technical Specification (TS)
3.4.10, ‘‘Structural Integrity,’’ while
relocating the requirements of
Surveillance Requirement 4.4.10 to TS
6.7.6.m.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is
presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the
physical function of plant structures,
systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner
in which SSCs perform their design function.
The proposed change neither adversely
affects accident initiators or precursors, nor
alters design assumptions. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability
of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within assumed acceptance
limits.
The proposed change removes from the
Technical Specifications the requirements
associated with structural integrity.
Removing these requirements will have no
adverse effect on plant operation, the
availability or operation of any accident
mitigation equipment, or plant response to a
design basis accident. The change has no
impact on the ability of [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME)] Code Class 1,
2, and 3 components to perform their safety
functions since these components remain
under the control of [Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 50.55a].
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not impact the
accident analysis. The change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will
be installed), a significant change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator
actions. The proposed change will not
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31375
introduce failure modes that could result in
a new accident. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed
change does not involve a significant change
in the method of plant operation, and no
accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Additionally, the
proposed changes will not relax any criteria
used to establish safety limits and will not
relax any safety system settings. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by this change. The proposed change will not
result in plant operation in a configuration
outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that
respond to safely shutdown the plant and to
maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, these 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 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O.
Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K.
Chernoff.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: March
28, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current]
Sources—Operating,’’ to incorporate
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF–163,
Revision 2, ‘‘Minimum vs. Steady State
Voltage and Frequency,’’ dated April 22,
1998. The proposed changes would also
revise the Final Safety Analysis Report
Update to identify an exception to NRC
Safety Guide 9, ‘‘Selection of Diesel
Generator Set Capacity for Standby
Power Supplies,’’ dated March 10, 1971.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
31376
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the
acceptance criteria to be applied to an
existing Technical Specification (TS)
surveillance test of the facility diesel
generators (DGs). The proposed changes also
revise the Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR) Update to identify an exception to
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, Revision 0, for DG
frequency recovery time following loading.
The performing of a surveillance test or
identification of RG 1.9 exceptions is not an
accident initiator and does not increase the
probability of an accident occurring. The
proposed new surveillance acceptance
criteria will continue to assure that the DGs
are capable of carrying the peak electrical
loading assumed in the various existing
safety analyses, which take credit for the
operation of the DGs. The proposed RG 1.9
exception does not adversely impact the
ability of the DGs to perform their safety
function.
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?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the test
acceptance criteria for a specific performance
test conducted on the existing DGs and
specify a RG 1.9 exception. The proposed
change does not involve installation of new
equipment or modification of existing
equipment, so no new equipment failure
modes are introduced. The proposed revision
to the DG surveillance test acceptance criteria
and the RG 1.9 exception are not a change
to the way that the equipment or facility is
operated and no new accident initiators are
created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The conduct of performance tests on
safety-related plant equipment is a means of
assuring that the equipment is capable of
maintaining the margin of safety established
in the safety analyses for the facility. With
the proposed change in the DG TS
surveillance test acceptance criteria, the DG
will continue to [be] tested in a manner that
assures it will perform as assumed in the
existing safety analyses. The proposed RG 1.9
exception does not adversely impact the
ability of the DGs to perform their safety
function and does not impact the safety
analyses for the facility.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–
387 and 50–388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 8,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes revise and add a
new Condition C to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ‘‘RCS [Reactor
Coolant System] Leakage Detection
Instrumentation’’ and revise the
associated bases. New Condition C is
applicable when the primary
containment atmosphere gaseous
radiation monitor is the only operable
TS-required instrument monitoring RCS
leakage, i.e., TS-required particulate and
sump monitors are inoperable. New
Condition C Required Actions require
monitoring RCS leakage by obtaining
and analyzing grab samples of the
primary containment atmosphere every
12 hours, monitoring RCS leakage using
administrative means every 12 hours,
and taking action to restore monitoring
capability using another monitor within
7 days. Additionally, minor editorial
revisions are proposed to ensure
continuity of the TS format. These
changes are the result of new Condition
C and consist of re-lettering existing
Conditions C and D as Conditions D and
E, respectively.
The NRC staff issued a notice of
opportunity for comment in the Federal
Register (FR) on April 13, 2010 (75 FR
18907–18908), based on TS Task Force
(TSTF)–514, Revision 1, on possible
amendments to revise the plant-specific
TS, to define a new time limit for
restoring inoperable RCS leakage
detection instrumentation to operable
status, establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or
more required monitors are inoperable,
and make TS Bases changes which
reflect the proposed changes and more
accurately reflect the contents of the
facility design basis related to
operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation, including a model
safety evaluation (SE) and model no
significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination, using the
consolidated line-item improvement
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
process. The NRC staff subsequently
issued a notice of availability of the
models, electronically under ADAMS
Accession Number ML102300729, for
referencing in license amendment
applications in the FR on December 17,
2010 (75 FR 79048). The FR notice of
availability also stated that the NRC staff
disposition of comments received on the
Notice of Opportunity for Comment
announced in the FR on April 13, 2010
(75 FR 18907–18908), on TSTF–514,
Revision 1 is available electronically
under ADAMS Accession Number
ML102300727. The differences between
the revisions did not cause any changes
to the NRC staff SE. As such the
comments received on Revision 1 are
equally applicable to Revision 3. The
licensee affirmed the applicability of the
model NSHC determination in its
application dated April 8, 2011.
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 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
primary containment 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
primary containment atmospheric gaseous
radiation monitor. The proposed change does
not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(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?
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
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
primary containment atmospheric gaseous
radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of
time the plant is allowed to operate, with
only the primary containment atmospheric
gaseous radiation monitor operable, increases
the margin of safety by limiting continued
plant operation during the timeframe of
reduced monitoring capabilities. 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
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: Bryan A. Snapp,
Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL
Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St.,
GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101–1179.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North
Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and
No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 27,
2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the technical specifications (TS) to
define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) leakage detection instrumentation
to operable status and establish alternate
methods of monitoring RCS leakage
when one or more required monitors are
inoperable. These changes are
consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force traveler TSTF–513, Revision
3, ‘‘Revise PWR [pressurized water
reactor] Operability Requirements and
Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.’’ The availability of
this TS improvement was announced in
the Federal Register on January 3, 2011
(76 FR 189) as part of the consolidated
line-item improvement process.
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
The proposed change clarifies the
operability requirements for the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation presently installed
in the plant and reduces the time allowed for
the plant to operate when the only TSrequired operable RCS leakage detection
instrumentation monitor is the containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor.
Monitoring for RCS leakage does not
contribute to the probability of an accident,
Furthermore, the monitoring of RCS leakage
is not a precursor to any accident previously
evaluated. Monitoring RCS leakage is not
used to mitigate the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation
monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection
capability that the probability of piping
evaluated and approved for Leak-BeforeBreak progressing to pipe rupture remains
extremely low. 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
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation
monitor. Reducing the amount of time the
plant is allowed to operate with only the
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation
monitor operable has a positive impact on
the margin of safety by limiting the time of
plant operation in this configuration, which
increases 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
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31377
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, 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, Public File Area 01F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the
NRC Library at 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.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
31378
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of application for amendment:
September 30, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.7, ‘‘Standby
Liquid Control (SLC) System,’’ to
support a transition to GE14 fuel in the
Columbia Generating Station reactor
core. Specifically, the changes raised the
required average boron concentration in
the SLC delivered to the reactor core
from 660 parts per million (ppm)
natural boron to a concentration
equivalent to 780 ppm natural boron.
The licensee will accomplish this by
using sodium pentaborate solution
enriched with the Boron-10 (B–10)
isotope. As a result, the amendment
added a new TS Surveillance
Requirement 3.1.7.9 to verify sodium
pentaborate enrichment is ≥ 44.0 atom
percent B–10 prior to addition to the
SLC tank. The associated TS Bases will
be updated under TS 5.5.10, ‘‘Technical
Specification (TS) Bases Control
Program,’’ to reflect the increase in the
SLC Boron-10 enrichment.
Date of issuance: May 18, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
during the spring 2011 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 221.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
21: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 14, 2010
(75 FR 77912).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station (LGS),
Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
June 30, 2010, as supplemented by letter
dated December 15, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments change the High Pressure
Coolant Injection (HPCI) Equipment
Room Delta Temperature High Trip
Setpoint and Allowable Value listed in
Technical Specification Table 3.3.2–2,
Isolation Actuation Instrumentation
Setpoints, Item 4e. The changes were
proposed as a result of a revised
licensee analysis which indicated that
the setpoints needed to be lowered to
provide an isolation signal for the HPCI
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
steam supply lines, appropriate for all
postulated conditions, in the event of a
25 gallon-per-minute HPCI steam line
leak.
Date of issuance: May 11, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–202; Unit
2–164.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
39 and NPF–85. The amendments
revised the licenses and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 24, 2010 (75 FR
52041).
The supplement dated December 15,
2010, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed and did not change
the NRC staff’s original proposed no
significant hazards determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–282, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1,
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment:
February 3, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated March 15, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This
amendment revises the Facility
Operating License and the Technical
Specification 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—
Operating’’, Surveillance Requirement
3.8.1.10 footnote requiring battery
charger modifications.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 15 days.
Amendment No.: 200.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
42: Amendment revises the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 22, 2011
(76 FR 9827).
The supplemental letter contained
clarifying information and did not
change this initial no significant hazard
consideration determination, and did
not expand the scope of the original
Federal Register notice.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of application for amendments:
June 14, 2010.
Brief description of amendments:
These amendments revise the Technical
Specifications to allow the use of a
dedicated on-line core power
distribution monitoring system, the
Westinghouse Best Estimate Analyzer
for Core Operation—Nuclear
(BEACONTM).
Date of issuance: May 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to December 31, 2011.
Amendment Nos.: 201/188.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
42 and DPR–60: Amendments revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 21, 2010 (75 FR
57527).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment:
September 17, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated February 8 and April 27,
2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the minimum
critical power ratio safety limits in
Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 from ≥
1.10 to ≥ 1.15 for two recirculation loop
operation, and from ≥ 1.12 to ≥ 1.15 for
single recirculation loop operation.
Date of issuance: May 4, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
before startup from the Spring 2011
refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 165.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
22. Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
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 May 4, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of May 2011.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
Commission. Telephone: 301–415–2963;
e-mail: Eric.Bowman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2011–13211 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0120]
Notice of Issuance of Bulletin 2011–01,
Mitigating Strategies
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued Bulletin
2011–01 to all holders of operating
licenses for nuclear power reactors,
except those who have permanently
ceased operation and have certified that
fuel has been removed from the reactor
vessel. The NRC has issued this Bulletin
to obtain a comprehensive verification
of compliance with the regulatory
requirements regarding the conditions
of licenses.
DATES: The Bulletin was issued on May
11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: NRC Bulletin 2011–01:
‘‘Mitigating Strategies’’ is available
through the NRC’s Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) under Accession
Number: ML111250360.
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, O1–F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available online in the NRC Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of the
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–800–397–4209,
301–415–4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Eric
Bowman, Senior Project Manager,
Generic Communications and Power
Uprate Branch, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 May 27, 2011
Jkt 223001
The NRC Has Issued This Bulletin for
Three Purposes
1. To require that addressees provide
a comprehensive verification of their
compliance with the regulatory
requirements of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
50.54(hh)(2),
2. To notify addressees about the NRC
staff’s need for information associated
with licensee mitigating strategies under
10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) in light of the
recent events at Japan’s Fukushima
Daiichi facility in order to determine if
(1) Additional assessment of program
implementation is needed, (2) the
current inspection program should be
enhanced, or (3) further regulatory
action is warranted, and
3. To require that addressees provide
a written response to the NRC in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of May 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stacey Rosenberg,
Chief, Generic Communications and Power
Uprate Branch, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–13355 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 030–03754; NRC–2011–0033]
Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for License
Amendment for ABB, Inc., Windsor, CT
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
John
Nicholson, Project Manager,
Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406.
Telephone: 610–337–5236; fax number:
610–337–5269; e-mail:
John.Nicholson@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a license
amendment to Material License No. 06–
00217–06 issued to ABB, Inc. (ABB or,
‘‘the licensee’’), to authorize a revision to
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31379
the previously approved (June 1, 2004)
Decommissioning Plan (DP) for its CE
Windsor Site (Facility) located at 2000
Day Hill Road, Windsor, Connecticut.
The NRC has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
support of this amendment in
accordance with the requirements of 10
CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC
has concluded that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate. The amendment will be
issued following the publication of this
Notice.
II. EA Summary
Identification of Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed
amendment is to approve a revision,
Decommissioning Plan Revision (DP) 2,
to the previously approved site DP for
the licensee’s facility. The original DP
was approved on June 1, 2004, and
revision 1 was approved on July 8, 2009.
Specifically, this Revision 2 to the
approved DP expands the scope of the
DP and provides the radiological status
and remediation plans for select
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program (FUSRAP) areas,
including the Site Brook and the
adjacent Debris Pile. In addition, sitespecific derived concentration guideline
limits (DCGLs) for thorium-232 (Th-232)
and radium-226 (Ra-226) are provided
in the revised DP. Small quantities of
Th-232 and Ra-226 were identified
during investigational sampling of the
Burning Grounds area, and DCGLs have
been developed and submitted for
approval as an addendum to the DP,
Revision 2 (Derivation of the SiteSpecific Soil DCGLs Addendum Soil
DCGLs for Thorium and Radium). The
revised DP does not change any
previously approved remediation
activities or DCGLs for uranium or
cobalt-60 (Co-60) at the site. On
February 26, 2010, and as supplemented
on August 6, 2010, ABB, Inc. requested
that NRC approve the proposed
amendment. The licensee’s request for
the proposed change, including an
opportunity to request a hearing or
provide comments, was previously
noticed in the Federal Register on
February 15, 2011 (76FR8785).
The staff has prepared the EA in
support of the proposed license
amendment. The proposed actions will
allow the licensee to continue to
remediate the remainder of the site for
eventual unrestricted use pending final
status survey results. The licensee has
obtained the proper permits from the
State of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection for the
planned remediation activities
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31369-31379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0117]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
Addresses: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0117 in the subject
line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking
Web site, https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be
edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed. You may submit comments by any one of the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search
[[Page 31370]]
for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2011-0117. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-3668; e-mail:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0117.
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 May 5, 2011 to May 18, 2011. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28470).
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), Sec. 50.92, this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules,
Announcements and Directives Branch (RADB), TWB-05-B01M, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be faxed to the RADB at 301-492-3446.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ''Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
NRC regulations are available online in the NRC Library on the NRC Web
site at 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.
[[Page 31371]]
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request
(1) A digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-
[[Page 31372]]
class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/ unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received
at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library 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.
Detroit Edison, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: April 8, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TS) 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 TS Bases changes which reflect the proposed
changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design
basis related to operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-514,
``Revise BWR Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 79048) as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
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 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 primary
containment 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 primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (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 primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the
amount of time the plant is allowed to operate with only the primary
containment 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 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: David G. Pettinari, DTE Energy Senior
Corporate Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, DTE Energy, One Energy Plaza,
Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes are
administrative in nature and would delete or modify existing license
conditions that have been completed or are otherwise no longer in
effect. Approval of the proposed changes to the Operating License would
support the Columbia license renewal effort.
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 amendment deletes license conditions which are
completed or are otherwise obsolete. As such, the changes are
strictly administrative in nature. The changes do not affect the
manner by which the facility is operated and do not change any
facility
[[Page 31373]]
design feature, structure, system, or component. The proposed
changes do not alter the design assumptions for the systems or
components used to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, 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 amendment deletes license conditions which are
completed or are otherwise obsolete. As such, the changes are
strictly administrative in nature. The changes do not affect the
manner by which the facility is operated and do not change any
facility design feature, structure, system, or component. No new or
different type of equipment will be installed.
Therefore, this change does 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the Operating License is
administrative in nature and has no impact on the margin of safety.
The changes do not affect any plant safety parameters or setpoints.
The license conditions have been satisfied as required.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: April 11, 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 TS Bases changes which reflect the proposed
changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design
basis related to operability of the RCS leakage detection
instrumentation. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 3 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved
Standard Technical Specification (STS) Change Traveler TSTF-514,
``Revise BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and
Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010
(75 FR 79048), as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process.
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 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 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 (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 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 A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC, the licensee), et al.,
Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), Lake
County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: April 12, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the PNPP Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time
limit for restoring inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage
detection instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate
methods of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors
are inoperable. The changes are consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
change traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, ``Revise [Pressurized Water
Reactor] PWR Operability 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 (CFR) 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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 monitoring of RCS leakage
is
[[Page 31374]]
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 involved 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 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 (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 amendment 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, the proposed TS 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendments 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 and to establish alternate methods
of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable.
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 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 containment
atmosphere 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 the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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 containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the
probability of piping evaluated and approved for Leak-Before-Break
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low.
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 containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere
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 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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: February 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
relocate selected figures and values from the Technical Specifications
(TSs) to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) including TS Figure
2.1-1 cited in TS 2.1.1, selected portions of Note 1 on Overtemperature
Delta Temperature and Note 3 on Overpower Delta Temperature in cited TS
Table 2.2-1, TS Figure 3.1-1 cited in TS 3/4.1.1.1, Shutdown Margin
value cited in TS 3/4.1.1.2, Moderator Temperature Coefficient values
cited in TS 3/4.1.1.3, and Departure from Nucleate Boiling values cited
in TS 3.2.5. The description of the COLR in TS 6.9.1.7 is also revised
to reflect these proposed changes. The affected TS figures and
technical limits cited above are only being relocated to the COLR and
are not being changed under this license amendment request.
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 to relocate cycle-specific parameters from
TS to the COLR are administrative in nature and do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facilities or the
manner in which the units are operated. The proposed changes do not
alter or prevent the
[[Page 31375]]
ability of structures, systems or components to perform their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the acceptance limits assumed in the PTN [Turkey Point
Plant] Updated Final Safety Report (UFSAR).
The subject parameter limits will continue to be
administratively controlled in accordance with Technical
Specification 6.9.1.7. Specifically, this TS requires the COLR to be
submitted to the NRC each reload cycle, including any mid-cycle
revisions or supplements.
Therefore, 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 changes do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configurations of the facilities or the manner in
which the units are operated. The proposed changes have no adverse
impact on component or system interactions. The proposed changes
will not degrade the ability of systems, structures or components
important to safety to perform their safety function nor change the
response of any system, structure or component important to safety
as described in the PTN UFSAR. The proposed changes are
administrative in nature and do not change the level of programmatic
and procedural details that assure safe operation of the facilities.
Since there are no changes to the design assumptions,
parameters, conditions and configuration of the facilities, or the
manner in which the plants are operated and surveilled, the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
There is no adverse impact on equipment design or operation and
there are no changes being made to Technical Specification cycle-
specific parameter limits themselves that would adversely affect
plant safety. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and
impose alternative procedural and programmatic controls on these
parameter limits in accordance with the Commission's position
established by Generic Letter 88-16 (Reference 1). Any needed
changes to these limits will continue to be submitted to the NRC in
accordance with TS 6.9.1.7 requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above discussion, FPL has determined that the
proposed change does not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: December 29, 2010.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would delete
the Seabrook Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Structural
Integrity,'' while relocating the requirements of Surveillance
Requirement 4.4.10 to TS 6.7.6.m.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, which is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not impact the physical function of
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed change
neither adversely affects accident initiators or precursors, nor
alters design assumptions. The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed change removes from the Technical Specifications
the requirements associated with structural integrity. Removing
these requirements will have no adverse effect on plant operation,
the availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment,
or plant response to a design basis accident. The change has no
impact on the ability of [American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)] Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components to perform their safety
functions since these components remain under the control of [Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.55a].
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not impact the accident analysis. The
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a significant
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions.
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident. The change does not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not
involve a significant change in the method of plant operation, and
no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used
to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, these 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current]
Sources--Operating,'' to incorporate Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-163, Revision 2, ``Minimum vs. Steady State
Voltage and Frequency,'' dated April 22, 1998. The proposed changes
would also revise the Final Safety Analysis Report Update to identify
an exception to NRC Safety Guide 9, ``Selection of Diesel Generator Set
Capacity for Standby Power Supplies,'' dated March 10, 1971.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the
[[Page 31376]]
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?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the acceptance criteria to be
applied to an existing Technical Specification (TS) surveillance
test of the facility diesel generators (DGs). The proposed changes
also revise the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Update to
identify an exception to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, Revision 0, for
DG frequency recovery time following loading. The performing of a
surveillance test or identification of RG 1.9 exceptions is not an
accident initiator and does not increase the probability of an
accident occurring. The proposed new surveillance acceptance
criteria will continue to assure that the DGs are capable of
carrying the peak electrical loading assumed in the various existing
safety analyses, which take credit for the operation of the DGs. The
proposed RG 1.9 exception does not adversely impact the ability of
the DGs to perform their safety function.
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?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the test acceptance criteria for a
specific performance test conducted on the existing DGs and specify
a RG 1.9 exception. The proposed change does not involve
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment,
so no new equipment failure modes are introduced. The proposed
revision to the DG surveillance test acceptance criteria and the RG
1.9 exception are not a change to the way that the equipment or
facility is operated and no new accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The conduct of performance tests on safety-related plant
equipment is a means of assuring that the equipment is capable of
maintaining the margin of safety established in the safety analyses
for the facility. With the proposed change in the DG TS surveillance
test acceptance criteria, the DG will continue to [be] tested in a
manner that assures it will perform as assumed in the existing
safety analyses. The proposed RG 1.9 exception does not adversely
impact the ability of the DGs to perform their safety function and
does not impact the safety analyses for the facility.
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.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 8, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revise and
add a new Condition C to Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ``RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] Leakage Detection Instrumentation'' and revise
the associated bases. New Condition C is applicable when the primary
containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor is the only operable
TS-required instrument monitoring RCS leakage, i.e., TS-required
particulate and sump monitors are inoperable. New Condition C Required
Actions require monitoring RCS leakage by obtaining and analyzing grab
samples of the primary containment atmosphere every 12 hours,
monitoring RCS leakage using administrative means every 12 hours, and
taking action to restore monitoring capability using another monitor
within 7 days. Additionally, minor editorial revisions are proposed to
ensure continuity of the TS format. These changes are the result of new
Condition C and consist of re-lettering existing Conditions C and D as
Conditions D and E, respectively.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register (FR) on April 13, 2010 (75 FR 18907-18908), based on
TS Task Force (TSTF)-514, Revision 1, on possible amendments to revise
the plant-specific TS, to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to operable status,
establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more
required monitors are inoperable, and make TS Bases changes which
reflect the proposed changes and more accurately reflect the contents
of the facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage
detection instrumentation, including a model safety evaluation (SE) and
model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using
the consolidated line-item improvement process. The NRC staff
subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models,
electronically under ADAMS Accession Number ML102300729, for
referencing in license amendment applications in the FR on December 17,
2010 (75 FR 79048). The FR notice of availability also stated that the
NRC staff disposition of comments received on the Notice of Opportunity
for Comment announced in the FR on April 13, 2010 (75 FR 18907-18908),
on TSTF-514, Revision 1 is available electronically under ADAMS
Accession Number ML102300727. The differences between the revisions did
not cause any changes to the NRC staff SE. As such the comments
received on Revision 1 are equally applicable to Revision 3. The
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in
its application dated April 8, 2011.
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 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 primary
containment 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 primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (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?
[[Page 31377]]
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 primary
containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the
amount of time the plant is allowed to operate, with only the
primary containment atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor operable,
increases the margin of safety by limiting continued plant operation
during the timeframe of reduced monitoring capabilities. 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 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: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3,
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 27, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications (TS) to define a new time limit for
restoring inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable. These changes are consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force traveler TSTF-513, Revision 3, ``Revise PWR [pressurized
water reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189) as
part of the consolidated line-item improvement process.
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 clarifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation presently installed in the
plant and reduces the time allowed for the plant to operate when the
only TS-required operable RCS leakage detection instrumentation
monitor is the containment atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor.
Monitoring for RCS leakage does not contribute to the probability of
an accident, Furthermore, the monitoring of RCS leakage is not a
precursor to any accident previously evaluated. Monitoring RCS
leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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 containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains sufficient
continuity and diversity of leak detection capability that the
probability of piping evaluated and approved for Leak-Before-Break
progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low. 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 containment
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time
the plant is allowed to operate with only the containment atmosphere
gaseous radiation monitor operable has a positive impact on the
margin of safety by limiting the time of plant operation in this
configuration, which increases 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 standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, 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, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received
at the NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
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.
[[Page 31378]]
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: September 30, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendmen
