Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 3508-3513 [2012-1215]
Download as PDF
3508
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Notices
regular filing fee), but such a service is
available only in cases where a
compelling need for the service exists
due to pending or prospective litigation,
customs matters, or contract or
publishing deadlines that necessitate
the expedited issuance of a certificate of
registration. See 37 CFR 201.15. In
Special Handling cases, ‘‘every attempt
is made to process the claim or
recordation within five working days,’’
see Circular 10, ‘‘Special Handling,’’
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/
circ10.pdf, although Special Handling
applications are often processed in a
shorter period of time.
Some applicants appear to be willing
to pay a higher fee in order to receive
expedited processing in cases that do
not qualify for Special Handling.
Assuming that those requests could be
accommodated without impact on the
processing of ordinary applications for
registration, the Office seeks comments
as to whether offering such a service
would be desirable. Presumably, the fee
would be higher than the fee for Special
Handling, since the policy justifications
for Special Handling would be absent
and the service would be offered as a
premium service for those who are
willing to pay more for expedited
service. It should be noted that
expedited services would not be
available until all elements of the claim
were fully received (application,
deposit, fees); there could not be any
unusual or complex issues with the
claim, or issues requiring
correspondence with the applicant, and
paper claims would most likely take
longer to process than those filed
electronically, even under expedited
circumstances.
The Office also welcomes proposals
for other special services that should be
offered on a fee-for-service basis. The
Office will consider all suggestions as it
develops and seeks comments on its
proposed fee schedule in the months to
come.
Dated: January 13, 2012.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2012–1340 Filed 1–23–12; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Jan 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0011]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
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 December
29, 2011, to January 11, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on
January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1514).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2012–0011 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
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2012–0011. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
(301) 492–3668; email
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492–
3446.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied for a fee publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through
ADAMS 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 email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. From this page,
the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737, or by email 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–2012–
0011.
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; (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
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Notices
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.
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 NRC’s PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Room O1–F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20874. The NRC
regulations are accessible electronically
from 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Jan 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3509
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a
digital identification (ID) certificate,
which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally
sign documents and access the E–
Submittal server for any proceeding in
which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the E–
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3510
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Notices
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site.
Further information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with the NRC
guidance available on the NRC’s public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. A filing is
considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s 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 email at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Jan 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–(866) 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) first class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
the presiding officer subsequently
determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20874. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through
ADAMS 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’s PDR
Reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,
Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529,
and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request:
November 22, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes would remove
duplicate Technical Specification (TS)
requirements and unit-specific
references that are no longer needed. In
addition, the proposed administrative
changes would correct typographical
errors and provide clarification to
ensure understanding of the required
actions of some of the TSs. The changes
would include corrective actions from
the Unit 2 event described in Licensee
Event Report (LER) 50–529/2011–001.
The proposed changes are
administrative or editorial in nature,
and would not result in any change to
operating requirements. These
administrative changes are proposed for
TS 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Protective System
(RPS) Instrumentation—Operating’’; TS
3.3.2, ‘‘Reactor Protective System (RPS)
Instrumentation—Shutdown’’; TS 3.3.5,
‘‘Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation’’; TS
3.5.5, ‘‘Refueling Water Tank (RWT)’’;
TS 3.3.9, ‘‘Control Room Essential
Filtration Actuation Signal (CREFAS)’’;
TS 3.7.11, ‘‘Control Room Essential
Filtration System (CREFS)’’; TS 5.4,
‘‘Procedures’’; and TS 5.5.16,
‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program.’’
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
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 involves
administrative and editorial changes. The
proposed amendment does not impact any
accident initiators, analyzed events, or
assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events. The proposed changes do not involve
the addition or removal of any equipment or
any design changes to the facility. The
proposed changes do not affect any plant
operations, design function, or analysis that
verifies the capability of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) to perform a design
function. The proposed changes do not
change any of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report]. The proposed
changes do not affect SSCs, operating
procedures, and administrative controls that
have the function of preventing or mitigating
any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
represent 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 involves
administrative and editorial changes. No
actual plant equipment or accident analyses
will be affected by the proposed changes. The
proposed changes will not change the design
function or operation of any SSCs. The
proposed changes will not result in any new
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not considered in the
design and licensing basis. The proposed
amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed
mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of an accident of a new
or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves
administrative and editorial changes. The
proposed changes do not involve any
physical changes to the plant or alter the
manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed changes do not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by the
changes. The proposed changes will not
result in plant operation in a configuration
outside the design basis. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect systems that
respond to safely shut down the plant and to
maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Jan 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on that
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the request
for amendments involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G.
Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O.
Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix,
Arizona 85072–2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1
(GGNS), Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request:
September 9, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated November 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would (1) Revise the
criticality requirements of Technical
Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ‘‘Criticality,’’
(2) revise the criticality safety analysis
(CSA) for the spent fuel and new fuel
storage racks, and (3) delete the spent
fuel pool (SFP) loading criteria
operating license (OL) condition in
paragraph 2.C.(46) of Facility Operating
License No. NPF–29. Specifically, the
proposed changes to TS 3.4.1 add the
following requirements for two
parameters for both the spent fuel
storage racks specified in TS 4.3.1.1 and
the new fuel storage racks specified in
TS 4.3.1.2:
• Fuel assembly maximum k-infinity
(1.26) in the normal reactor core
configuration at cold conditions, and
• Maximum nominal U-235
enrichment (4.9 weight percent).
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 involves a revision to
the GGNS CSA. The revised CSA does not
involve a physical change to any plant
systems nor does it involve a change to any
of the accident mitigation features previously
evaluated. The proposed CSA demonstrates
adequate margin to criticality for spent fuel
storage rack cells.
The proposed changes to the requirements
specified in TS 4.3.1.1 for spent fuel storage
racks and TS 4.3.1.2 for new fuel storage
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3511
racks are consistent with the revised CSA
and impose additional requirements
currently not included in the Technical
Specifications.
There is no dose consequence associated
with an abnormal condition since the CSA
acceptance criteria preclude criticality and
do not involve a radiological release.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves: (1) a
revision to the CSA; (2) the addition of new
requirements in the TSs, which are
consistent with the CSA; and (3) the deletion
of an OL condition, that is superseded upon
approval of the proposed CSA. Neither the
SFP CSA nor the proposed changes to the TS
affect the method of spent or new fuel
movement or storage. No physical changes
are required to any plant systems in support
of the revised CSA or the proposed TS
changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: [No.]
10 CFR 50.68, Criticality Accident
Requirements, requires the spent and fresh
fuel storage racks to maintain the effective
neutron multiplication factor, Keff, less than
or equal to 0.95 when fully flooded with
unborated water, which includes an
allowance for uncertainties. Therefore, for
criticality, the required safety margin is 5%,
including a conservative margin to account
for engineering and manufacturing
uncertainties. The revised CSA and proposed
TS changes continue to satisfy this
requirement.
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: Joseph A. Aluise,
Associate General Counsel—Nuclear, Entergy
Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–445 and 50–446, Comanche Peak
Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: December 13,
2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment would revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ‘‘Main Steam
Isolation Valves (MSIVs),’’ and TS 3.7.3,
‘‘Feedwater Isolation Valves (FIVs) and
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3512
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Notices
Feedwater Control Valves (FCVs) and
Associated Bypass Valves,’’ by removing the
specific isolation time for the main steam and
main feedwater isolation valves from the
associated TS Surveillance Requirements
(SRs) 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.3.1. These requirements
will be relocated to a licensee-controlled
document. The changes are consistent with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)approved Industry/Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF–
491, Revision 2, ‘‘Removal of Main Steam
and Main Feedwater Valve Isolation Times
from Technical Specifications.’’ The
availability of this TS improvement was
published in the Federal Register on
December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78472), 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 incorporated by
reference the no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) analysis endorsed by
the NRC staff in the notice of availability of
the TS improvement (71 FR 78472; December
29, 2006) and which was published in the
Federal Register on October 5, 2006 (71 FR
58884). The October 5, 2006, NSHC analysis
is reproduced below:
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does Not
Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated
The proposed change allows relocating
main steam and main feedwater valve
isolation times to the Licensee Controlled
Document that is referenced in the Bases.
The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF–491
related to relocating the main steam and
main feedwater valves isolation times to the
Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases and replacing the
isolation time with the phase, ‘‘within
limits.’’
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main
steam and main feedwater isolation valve
times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The
requirements to perform the testing of these
isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future
changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled
document will be evaluated pursuant to the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, test
and experiments,’’ to ensure that such
changes do not result in more than minimal
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect
the ability of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended
safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed changes do
not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Jan 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
accident previously evaluated. Further, the
proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that
may be released, nor significantly increase
individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does Not
Create the Possibility of a New or Different
Kind of Accident From Any Previously
Evaluated
The proposed changes relocate the main
steam and main feedwater valve isolation
times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. In addition,
the valve isolation times are replaced in the
TS with the phase ‘‘within limits.’’ The
changes do not involve a physical altering of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation.
The requirements in the TS continue to
require testing of the main steam and main
feedwater isolation valves to ensure the
proper functioning of these isolation valves.
Therefore, the changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does Not
Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin
of Safety
The proposed changes relocate the main
steam and main feedwater valve isolation
times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. In addition,
the valve isolation times are replaced in the
TS with the phase ‘‘within limits.’’
Instituting the proposed changes will
continue to ensure the testing of main steam
and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes
to the Bases or license controlled document
are performed in accordance with 10 CFR
50.59. This approach provides an effective
level of regulatory control and ensures that
main steam and feedwater isolation valve
testing is conducted such that there is no
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the
isolation valves is unaffected by the proposed
changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main
steam and main feedwater isolation valves.
The proposed changes maintain sufficient
controls to preserve the current margins of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the above
analysis and, based on this review, it appears
that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Timothy P.
Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius,
1800 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the
last biweekly notice, the Commission has
issued the following amendments. The
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located
at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20874. 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 NRC’s PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397–
4209, (301) 415–4737 or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Calvert County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments:
August 31, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise Technical Specification
(TS) 3.4.1, ‘‘RCS [reactor coolant system]
Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure
from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) Limits,’’ the
bases for TS 3.4.1 and TS 5.6.5, ‘‘Core
Operating Limits Report,’’ by replacing the
DNB numeric limits with references to the
CORL. The changes are consistent with TS
Task Force change traveler TSTF–487–A,
Revision 1, ‘‘Relocate DNB Parameters to the
COLR.’’ The amendments also remove
outdated notes in TS 3.4.1 that were
associated with the Unit 2 steam generator
replacement in 2003.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance
to be implemented within 60 days.
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
3513
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2012 / Notices
Amendment Nos.: 301 and 278.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR–53 and DPR–69: Amendments revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
October 14, 2011 (76 FR 64390).
The Commission’s related evaluation of
these amendments is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated January 11, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket
No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of application for amendment:
October 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the H. B. Robinson, Unit
2, Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ‘‘Fuel
Assemblies,’’ to permit the use of AREVA’s
M5 advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding and
fuel assembly structural components in
future operating cycles. Currently, as stated
in TS 4.2.1, the H. B. Robinson fuel cladding
is zircaloy-4. Therefore, an amendment
request is needed in order to use M5 fuel
cladding. The proposed amendment also
revises the H. B. Robinson Unit 2 TS 5.6.5.b,
‘‘Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ to
permit referencing of analytical
methodologies for M5 material and the
deletion of existing analytical methodologies
that are no longer planned to be used by the
licensee.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2011.
Effective date: 60 days from date of
issuance.
Amendment No. 227.
Renewed Facility Operating License No.
DPR–23. Amendment revises the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21921).
The Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a safety
evaluation dated December 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,
Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos.
50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments:
October 29, 2010, as supplemented by letters
dated February 21, May 27, and October 13,
2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications by relocating the specific
surveillance frequencies to a licenseecontrolled program using risk-informed
justification (Technical Specification Task
Force—425).
Date of issuance: January 3, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance
and shall be implemented within 120 days
from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–266 and Unit 2–
210.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Jan 23, 2012
Jkt 226001
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments revised
the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
December 14, 2010 (75 FR 77916).
The supplements dated February 21, May
27, and October 13, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff’s original proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendments is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated January 3, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50–
390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1,
Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment:
October 5, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the facility operating
license to remove License Condition 2.G.
This license condition described reporting
requirements of other requirements in
Section 2.C of the facility operating license.
The change is consistent with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission approved change
notice published in the Federal Register on
November 4, 2005 (70 FR 67202), announcing
the availability of this improvement through
the consolidated line item improvement
process.
Date of issuance: January 6, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance
and shall be implemented no later than 32
days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 90.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–90:
Amendment revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
November 1, 2011 (76 FR 67490).
The Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated January 6, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50–483,
Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County,
Missouri
Date of application for amendment:
December 10, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated June 16, October 27, and
December 13, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment added new Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.6 to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.8, ‘‘Emergency Exhaust
System (EES) Actuation Instrumentation.’’
The new SR requires the performance of
response time testing on the portion of the
EES required to isolate the normal fuel
building ventilation exhaust flow path and
initiate the fuel building ventilation isolation
signal mode of operation. The amendment
also revised TS Table 3.3.8–1, ‘‘EES
Actuation Instrumentation,’’ to indicate that
new SR 3.3.8.6 applies to automatic actuation
Function 2, Automatic Actuation Logic and
Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS), and
Function 3, Fuel Building Exhaust
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Radiation—Gaseous. In addition, the
specified frequency of new SR 3.3.8.6 was
relocated and controlled in accordance with
the licensee’s Surveillance Frequency
Control Program.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance
and shall be implemented within 90 days
from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 204.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–30:
The amendment revised the Operating
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
March 8, 2011 (76 FR 12766); revised and
republished on November 29, 2011 (76 FR
73733). The supplemental letter dated June
16, 2011, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination.
The supplemental letter dated October 27,
2011, added a new request for approval to
relocate the surveillance frequency of new SR
3.3.8.6 to the licensee’s Surveillance
Frequency Control Program. The proposed
NSHC determination for this additional
change was not evaluated in the initial notice
(76 FR 12766; March 8, 2011); therefore, on
November 29, 2011, the NRC staff revised
and republished the notice of proposed
NSHC incorporating the new change (76 FR
73733). The republished notice also provided
an opportunity to request a hearing by
January 30, 2012, but indicated that if the
Commission makes a final NSHC
determination, any such hearing would take
place after issuance of the amendment.
The supplemental letter dated December
13, 2011, provided additional information
that clarified the application, as
supplemented, did not expand the scope of
the application, as supplemented, and did
not change the staff’s revised proposed NSHC
determination, as published in the Federal
Register on November 29, 2011 (76 FR
73733).
The Commission’s related evaluation of the
amendment and final NSHC determination
are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 30, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day
of January 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–1215 Filed 1–23–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0002]
Sunshine Federal Register Notice
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS:
Regulatory Commission.
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
Nuclear
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3508-3513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1215]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0011]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
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 December 29, 2011, to January 11, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1514).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0011 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 for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2012-0011. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher (301)
492-3668; email Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are accessible electronically through ADAMS 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
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email 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-2012-0011.
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; (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
[[Page 3509]]
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.
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 NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20874. The NRC
regulations are accessible electronically from 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.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification
(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at https://
[[Page 3510]]
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to
use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using
unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's 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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's 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 email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-(866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20874. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-
4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: November 22, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would remove
duplicate Technical Specification (TS) requirements and unit-specific
references that are no longer needed. In addition, the proposed
administrative changes would correct typographical errors and provide
clarification to ensure understanding of the required actions of some
of the TSs. The changes would include corrective actions from the Unit
2 event described in Licensee Event Report (LER) 50-529/2011-001. The
proposed changes are administrative or editorial in nature, and would
not result in any change to operating requirements. These
administrative changes are proposed for TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protective
System (RPS) Instrumentation--Operating''; TS 3.3.2, ``Reactor
Protective System (RPS) Instrumentation--Shutdown''; TS 3.3.5,
``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS)
Instrumentation''; TS 3.5.5, ``Refueling Water Tank (RWT)''; TS 3.3.9,
``Control Room Essential Filtration Actuation Signal (CREFAS)''; TS
3.7.11, ``Control Room Essential Filtration System (CREFS)''; TS 5.4,
``Procedures''; and TS 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program.''
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
[[Page 3511]]
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 involves administrative and editorial
changes. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events. The proposed changes do not involve the addition
or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility.
The proposed changes do not affect any plant operations, design
function, or analysis that verifies the capability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design function. The
proposed changes do not change any of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. The
proposed changes do not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and
administrative controls that have the function of preventing or
mitigating any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent 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 involves administrative and editorial
changes. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be
affected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not
change the design function or operation of any SSCs. The proposed
changes will not result in any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions,
or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing
basis. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
an accident of a new or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves administrative and editorial
changes. The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed changes do
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the changes.
The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: September 9, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated November 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would (1) Revise
the criticality requirements of Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1,
``Criticality,'' (2) revise the criticality safety analysis (CSA) for
the spent fuel and new fuel storage racks, and (3) delete the spent
fuel pool (SFP) loading criteria operating license (OL) condition in
paragraph 2.C.(46) of Facility Operating License No. NPF-29.
Specifically, the proposed changes to TS 3.4.1 add the following
requirements for two parameters for both the spent fuel storage racks
specified in TS 4.3.1.1 and the new fuel storage racks specified in TS
4.3.1.2:
Fuel assembly maximum k-infinity (1.26) in the normal
reactor core configuration at cold conditions, and
Maximum nominal U-235 enrichment (4.9 weight percent).
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 involves a revision to the GGNS CSA. The
revised CSA does not involve a physical change to any plant systems
nor does it involve a change to any of the accident mitigation
features previously evaluated. The proposed CSA demonstrates
adequate margin to criticality for spent fuel storage rack cells.
The proposed changes to the requirements specified in TS 4.3.1.1
for spent fuel storage racks and TS 4.3.1.2 for new fuel storage
racks are consistent with the revised CSA and impose additional
requirements currently not included in the Technical Specifications.
There is no dose consequence associated with an abnormal
condition since the CSA acceptance criteria preclude criticality and
do not involve a radiological release.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves: (1) a revision to the CSA; (2) the
addition of new requirements in the TSs, which are consistent with
the CSA; and (3) the deletion of an OL condition, that is superseded
upon approval of the proposed CSA. Neither the SFP CSA nor the
proposed changes to the TS affect the method of spent or new fuel
movement or storage. No physical changes are required to any plant
systems in support of the revised CSA or the proposed TS changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: [No.]
10 CFR 50.68, Criticality Accident Requirements, requires the
spent and fresh fuel storage racks to maintain the effective neutron
multiplication factor, Keff, less than or equal to 0.95 when fully
flooded with unborated water, which includes an allowance for
uncertainties. Therefore, for criticality, the required safety
margin is 5%, including a conservative margin to account for
engineering and manufacturing uncertainties. The revised CSA and
proposed TS changes continue to satisfy this requirement.
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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: December 13, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves
(MSIVs),'' and TS 3.7.3, ``Feedwater Isolation Valves (FIVs) and
[[Page 3512]]
Feedwater Control Valves (FCVs) and Associated Bypass Valves,'' by
removing the specific isolation time for the main steam and main
feedwater isolation valves from the associated TS Surveillance
Requirements (SRs) 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.3.1. These requirements will be
relocated to a licensee-controlled document. The changes are
consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler
TSTF-491, Revision 2, ``Removal of Main Steam and Main Feedwater
Valve Isolation Times from Technical Specifications.'' The
availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal
Register on December 29, 2006 (71 FR 78472), 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
incorporated by reference the no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) analysis endorsed by the NRC staff in the notice of
availability of the TS improvement (71 FR 78472; December 29, 2006)
and which was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2006
(71 FR 58884). The October 5, 2006, NSHC analysis is reproduced
below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change allows relocating main steam and main
feedwater valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases. The proposed change is described in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change
Traveler TSTF-491 related to relocating the main steam and main
feedwater valves isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document
that is referenced in the Bases and replacing the isolation time
with the phase, ``within limits.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valve times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. The requirements to perform the testing of
these isolation valves are retained in the TS. Future changes to the
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments,''
to ensure that such changes do not result in more than minimal
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phase ``within limits.'' The changes do
not involve a physical altering of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements in the TS
continue to require testing of the main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves to ensure the proper functioning of these isolation
valves.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed changes relocate the main steam and main feedwater
valve isolation times to the Licensee Controlled Document that is
referenced in the Bases. In addition, the valve isolation times are
replaced in the TS with the phase ``within limits.'' Instituting the
proposed changes will continue to ensure the testing of main steam
and main feedwater isolation valves. Changes to the Bases or license
controlled document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
This approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and
ensures that main steam and feedwater isolation valve testing is
conducted such that there is no significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The margin of safety provided by the isolation valves is
unaffected by the proposed changes since there continue to be TS
requirements to ensure the testing of main steam and main feedwater
isolation valves. The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls
to preserve the current margins of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the above analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis
and Bockius, 1800 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission
has determined for each of these amendments that the application
complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and
regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with
these actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission
has prepared an environmental assessment under the special
circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a
determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the
Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public
inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20874. 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 NRC's PDR Reference staff at
1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-
318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of application for amendments: August 31, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Pressure,
Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB)
Limits,'' the bases for TS 3.4.1 and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating
Limits Report,'' by replacing the DNB numeric limits with references
to the CORL. The changes are consistent with TS Task Force change
traveler TSTF-487-A, Revision 1, ``Relocate DNB Parameters to the
COLR.'' The amendments also remove outdated notes in TS 3.4.1 that
were associated with the Unit 2 steam generator replacement in 2003.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented
within 60 days.
[[Page 3513]]
Amendment Nos.: 301 and 278.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 14, 2011 (76
FR 64390).
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: October 20, 2010.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the H. B.
Robinson, Unit 2, Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel
Assemblies,'' to permit the use of AREVA's M5 advanced alloy for
fuel rod cladding and fuel assembly structural components in future
operating cycles. Currently, as stated in TS 4.2.1, the H. B.
Robinson fuel cladding is zircaloy-4. Therefore, an amendment
request is needed in order to use M5 fuel cladding. The proposed
amendment also revises the H. B. Robinson Unit 2 TS 5.6.5.b, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to permit referencing of
analytical methodologies for M5 material and the deletion of
existing analytical methodologies that are no longer planned to be
used by the licensee.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2011.
Effective date: 60 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No. 227.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76
FR 21921).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a safety evaluation dated December 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366,
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: October 29, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated February 21, May 27, and October 13,
2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by relocating the specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program using risk-informed
justification (Technical Specification Task Force--425).
Date of issuance: January 3, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-266 and Unit 2-210.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 14, 2010
(75 FR 77916).
The supplements dated February 21, May 27, and October 13, 2011,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 3, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: October 5, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
facility operating license to remove License Condition 2.G. This
license condition described reporting requirements of other
requirements in Section 2.C of the facility operating license. The
change is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved
change notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2005
(70 FR 67202), announcing the availability of this improvement
through the consolidated line item improvement process.
Date of issuance: January 6, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be
implemented no later than 32 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 90.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76
FR 67490).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: December 10, 2010, as
supplemented by letters dated June 16, October 27, and December 13,
2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added new
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.6 to Technical Specification
(TS) 3.3.8, ``Emergency Exhaust System (EES) Actuation
Instrumentation.'' The new SR requires the performance of response
time testing on the portion of the EES required to isolate the
normal fuel building ventilation exhaust flow path and initiate the
fuel building ventilation isolation signal mode of operation. The
amendment also revised TS Table 3.3.8-1, ``EES Actuation
Instrumentation,'' to indicate that new SR 3.3.8.6 applies to
automatic actuation Function 2, Automatic Actuation Logic and
Actuation Relays (BOP ESFAS), and Function 3, Fuel Building Exhaust
Radiation--Gaseous. In addition, the specified frequency of new SR
3.3.8.6 was relocated and controlled in accordance with the
licensee's Surveillance Frequency Control Program.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2011.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be
implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 204.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 8, 2011 (76 FR
12766); revised and republished on November 29, 2011 (76 FR 73733).
The supplemental letter dated June 16, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope
of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination.
The supplemental letter dated October 27, 2011, added a new
request for approval to relocate the surveillance frequency of new
SR 3.3.8.6 to the licensee's Surveillance Frequency Control Program.
The proposed NSHC determination for this additional change was not
evaluated in the initial notice (76 FR 12766; March 8, 2011);
therefore, on November 29, 2011, the NRC staff revised and
republished the notice of proposed NSHC incorporating the new change
(76 FR 73733). The republished notice also provided an opportunity
to request a hearing by January 30, 2012, but indicated that if the
Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such hearing would
take place after issuance of the amendment.
The supplemental letter dated December 13, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the application, as
supplemented, did not expand the scope of the application, as
supplemented, and did not change the staff's revised proposed NSHC
determination, as published in the Federal Register on November 29,
2011 (76 FR 73733).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final
NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 30, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-1215 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P