Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 1267-1274 [2012-31710]
Download as PDF
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
Expiration Date of Current Approval:
October 31, 2013.
Proposed Renewal Project: The Higher
Education Research and Development
Survey (formerly known as the Survey
of Research and Development
Expenditures at Universities and
Colleges) originated in fiscal year (FY)
1954 and has been conducted annually
since FY 1972. The survey is the
academic research and development
component of the NSF statistical
program that seeks to provide a ‘‘central
clearinghouse for the collection,
interpretation, and analysis of data on
the availability of, and the current and
projected need for, scientific and
technical resources in the United States,
and to provide a source of information
for policy formulation by other agencies
of the federal government,’’ as mandated
by the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 § 505,
codified in the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. In
recent years, NSF redesigned and
expanded the survey to better reflect the
current state of academic R&D. The
redesigned survey was renamed the
Higher Education R&D Survey and pilot
tested with a random sample of 40
institutions during the FY 2009 survey
cycle. The revised survey began for all
institutions with the FY 2010 cycle.
Use of the Information: The proposed
project will continue the annual survey
cycle for three years. The FY 2013
Higher Education R&D Survey will be
administered to an expected minimum
of 660 institutions. In addition, a shorter
version of the survey asking for R&D
expenditures by source of funding and
broad field will be sent to
approximately 325 institutions spending
under $1 million on R&D in their
previous fiscal year. Finally, a survey
requesting R&D expenditures by source
of funds, cost categories (salaries,
indirect costs, equipment, etc.), and
character of work (basic research,
applied research, or development) will
be administered to the 39 Federally
Funded Research and Development
Centers.
The Higher Education R&D Survey
will provide continuity of statistics on
R&D expenditures by source of funding
and field of research, with separate data
requested on current fund expenditures
for research equipment by field. Further
breakdowns are collected on funds
passed through to subrecipients and
funds received as a subrecipient, and on
R&D expenditures by field from specific
federal agency sources. As of FY 2010,
the survey also requests total R&D
expenditures funded from foreign
sources, R&D within an institution’s
medical school, clinical trial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
expenditures, R&D by type of funding
mechanism (contracts vs. grants), R&D
funded by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, and R&D by
cost category (salaries, equipment,
software, etc.). The survey also requests
headcounts of principal investigators
and other personnel paid from R&D
funds, as well as a separate count of
postdocs working on R&D.
Data are published in NSF’s annual
publication series Higher Education
Research and Development and are
available electronically on the World
Wide Web.
The survey is a fully automated Web
data collection effort and is handled
primarily by administrators in
university sponsored programs and
accounting offices. To minimize burden,
institutions are provided with an
abundance of guidance and resources on
the Web, and are able to respond via a
downloadable excel spreadsheet if
desired. Each institution’s record is preloaded with the 2 previous years of
comparable data that facilitate editing
and trend checking. Response to this
voluntary survey has exceeded 95
percent each year.
The average burden report for the FY
2011 survey was 50 hours for
institutions reporting over $1 million in
R&D expenditures and 14 hours for
those reporting less than $1 million. The
burden estimate for the FFRDC survey is
6 hours.
Dated: January 3, 2013.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2013–00188 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am]
1267
to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, 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
13, 2012 to December 26, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on
December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73684).
ADDRESSES: You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2012–0321. You
may submit comments by the following
methods:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0321. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 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.
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0321]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined 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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–
0321 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and is
publicly available, by the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0321.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1268
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Documents may be viewed in ADAMS
by performing a search on the document
date and docket number.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2012–
0321 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information in
comment submissions that you do not
want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC
posts all comment submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as entering
the comment submissions into ADAMS,
and the NRC does not edit comment
submissions to remove identifying or
contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information in
their comment submissions that they do
not want to be publicly disclosed. Your
request should state that the NRC will
not edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making
the comment submissions available to
the public or entering the comment
submissions into ADAMS.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined 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), Section 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
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 or
combined 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 20852. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
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 (1) request 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 ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
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’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an 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 NRC’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’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1269
free call to 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.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1270
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the following three factors
in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The
information upon which the filing is
based was not previously available; (ii)
the information upon which the filing is
based is materially different from
information previously available; and
(iii) the filing has been submitted in a
timely fashion based on the availability
of the subsequent information.
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
20852. 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 PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request:
November 14, 2012.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
relocate the Technical Specification
(TS) requirements for motor-operated
valve thermal overload protection from
the TSs to the Technical Requirements
Manual (TRM). The TRM is a licenseecontrolled document.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the motor
operated valve (MOV) thermal overload
(TOL) protection operability and surveillance
requirements from the Limerick Generating
Station (LGS) Technical Specifications (TS)
to a licensee-controlled document under the
control of 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed changes do not alter the
physical design of any plant structure,
system, or component; therefore, the
proposed changes have no adverse effect on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
plant operation, or the availability or
operation of any accident mitigation
equipment. The plant response to the design
basis accidents does not change. Operation or
failure of the MOV TOL protection bypass
capability is not assumed to be an initiator
of any analyzed event in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and cannot
cause an accident. Whether the requirements
for the MOV TOL protection bypass
capability are located in TS or another
licensee-controlled document has no effect
on the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes conform to NRC
regulatory requirements regarding the
content of plant TS as identified in 10 CFR
50.36, and also the guidance as approved by
the NRC in NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard
Technical Specifications—General Electric
BWR/4 Plants.’’
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the MOV
TOL protection operability and surveillance
requirements from the LGS TS to a licenseecontrolled document under the control of 10
CFR 50.59.
The proposed changes do not alter the
plant configuration (no new or different type
of equipment is being installed) or require
any new or unusual operator actions. The
proposed changes do not alter the safety
limits or safety analysis assumptions
associated with the operation of the plant.
The proposed changes do not introduce any
new failure modes that could result in a new
accident. The proposed changes do not
reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of
any plant structure, system, or component in
the performance of their safety function.
Also, the response of the plant and the
operators following the design basis
accidents is unaffected by the proposed
changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no adverse
effect on plant operation, or the availability
or operation of any accident mitigation
equipment. The plant response to the design
basis accidents does not change. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect
existing plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed to operate in the
safety analyses. There is no change being
made to safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes.
In addition, the relocated requirements do
not meet any of the 10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii)
criteria on items for which TS must be
established. Operability and surveillance
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements will be established in a
licensee-controlled document to ensure the
reliability of MOV TOL protection bypass
capability. Changes to these requirements
will be subject to the controls of 10 CFR
50.59, providing the appropriate level of
regulatory control.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley
Fewell, Esquire, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,
IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No.
50–440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
No. 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request:
September 5, 2012.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify PNPP’s Technical Specifications
(TS) Table 3.3.5.1, ‘‘Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS)
Instrumentation,’’ footnote (a) to require
ECCS instrumentation to be operable
only when the associated ECCS
subsystems are required to be operable.
This proposed change is consistent with
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)approved TS Task Force (TSTF) Change
Traveler TSTF–275–A, Revision 0.
Additionally, the proposed
amendment would add exceptions to
the diesel generator (DG) surveillance
requirements (SRs) for TS 3.8.2, ‘‘AC
Sources—Shutdown,’’ to eliminate the
requirement that the DG be capable of
responding to ECCS initiation signals
while the ECCS subsystems are not
required to be operable. This proposed
change is consistent with NRC-approved
TSTF–300–A, Revision 0.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section
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.
This proposed amendment involves
changes to Technical Specification Table
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
3.3.5.1–1, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling System
[ECCS] Instrumentation,’’ and Surveillance
Requirement 3.8.2.1 for alternating current
sources during shutdown.
The proposed changes to Table 3.3.5.1–1
ensures that ECCS instrumentation is only
required to be operable when the ECCS
subsystems and annulus exhaust gas
treatments subsystems are required to be
operable. These changes ensure ECCS
instrumentation that actuates ECCS
subsystems and annulus exhaust gas
treatment subsystems are required to be
operable to perform their function as
described in the safety analysis, and do not
involve physical changes to plant systems,
structures or components. The proposed
changes to Table 3.3.5.1–1 do not affect plant
operations or design functions, and do not
increase the likelihood of a malfunction.
The surveillance requirement change
eliminates the requirement that the diesel
generator be capable of responding to ECCS
initiation signals when the ECCS injection/
spray subsystems are not required to be
operable. The modified surveillance
requirements do not involve physical
changes to plant systems, structures or
components, and would not cause the plant
to be operated in a new or different manner.
No new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators would be introduced by
the proposed changes. The required
equipment continues to be tested in a manner
and at a frequency necessary to provide
confidence that the equipment can perform
its intended safety function. If the ECCS
subsystems are not required to be operable,
there is no benefit to maintaining diesel
generator capability to respond to ECCS
initiation signals. The proposed surveillance
requirement change does not affect plant
operations or design functions, and does not
increase the likelihood of a malfunction.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 Technical Specification
changes would correctly identify the
applicable modes or other specified
conditions for which ECCS instrumentation
is required to be operable and revises
requirements for when certain surveillances
are to be performed. These changes would
not result in revisions of plant design,
physical alteration of a plant structure,
system, or component, or installation of new
different types equipment. No new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators would be introduced by the
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed
amendment 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 changes have no effect on
design basis, safety limits, or safety analysis
assumptions or methods of performing safety
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
analyses. The changes do not adversely affect
system operability or design requirements
and the equipment continues to be tested in
a manner and at a frequency necessary to
provide confidence that the equipment can
perform its intended safety function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not result in any reduction in a margin of
safety.
Based on the above, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company concludes that the
proposed amendment does not involve a
significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant
hazards consideration’’ is justified.
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
requested amendment 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: Michael I. Dudek.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Florida Power and Light Company,
Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request:
September 14, 2012.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the licenses and the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to (1) close and
remove license conditions that have
been fully satisfied as of the end of the
Unit 3 Cycle 26 refueling outage, (2)
revise TS 5.5.1 to remove related license
conditions, (3) correct several
inadvertent errors in the TS, and (4)
update the reference to the Physical
Security Plan to the latest approved
revision in the related license
conditions.
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 amendments do not change
or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes,
fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies
that may be stored in the spent fuel pool
(SFP), decay heat generation rate, or the
spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system.
The proposed amendments only limit
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1271
crediting of burnable absorbers in the spent
fuel pool to Integrated Fuel Burnable
Absorber (IFBA) rods that were specifically
addressed in the currently approved
criticality analysis [WCAP–17094–P,
Revision 3, ‘‘Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4
New Fuel Storage Rack and Spent Fuel Pool
Criticality Analysis,’’ February 2011]. The
removal of the phrase ‘‘or an equivalent
amount of another burnable absorber’’
eliminates the possibility of crediting a
burnable absorber other than IFBA for storage
of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel
pool without prior NRC [U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission] approval. The
deletion of the license condition associated
with the Boraflex Remedy is editorial as it is
no longer applicable. The proposed
amendments do not affect the ability of the
BAST [boric acid storage tank] to perform its
function or the ability of the CREVS [control
room emergency ventilation system] to
perform its function. These latter proposed
TS changes correct inadvertent errors and are
consistent with the stated intent of original
license submittals or delete license
conditions that have been fully satisfied.
The proposed amendments do not cause
any physical change to the existing spent fuel
storage configuration or fuel makeup. The
proposed amendments do not affect any
precursors to any accident previously
evaluated or do not affect any known
mitigation equipment or strategies.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change
or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes,
fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that
may be stored in the pool, decay heat
generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling
and cleanup system. The proposed
amendments do not result in any changes to
spent fuel or to fuel storage configurations.
The removal of the phrase ‘‘or an equivalent
amount of another burnable absorber’’
eliminates the possibility of crediting a
burnable absorber other than IFBA for storage
of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel
pool without prior NRC approval. The
proposed amendments do not affect the
ability of the BAST to perform its function
or the ability of the CREVS to perform its
function. These latter proposed TS changes
correct inadvertent errors and are consistent
with the stated intent of the original license
submittals, delete license conditions that are
no longer applicable or have been fully
satisfied.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in the margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change
or modify the fuel, fuel handling processes,
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1272
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that
may be stored in the pool, decay heat
generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling
and cleanup system. Therefore, the proposed
amendments have no impact to the existing
margin of safety for subcriticality required by
10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4). The other proposed TS
changes correct inadvertent errors and are
consistent with the stated intent of the
original license submittals or delete license
conditions that are no longer applicable or
have been fully satisfied.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do
not involve a significant reduction in the
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: James Petro,
Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida
Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408–0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F.
Quichocho.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined 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.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the Commission’s Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available 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’s
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, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and
3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment:
August 10, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated September 4, October 11,
and November 16, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments revised the basis and
description for Milestones 6 and 7 of the
licensee’s Cyber Security Plan
implementation schedule. In addition,
the amendments revised paragraph 2.E
of the facility operating licenses.
Date of issuance: December 13, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1—190; Unit
2—190; Unit 3—190.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The
amendments revised the Operating
Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61436).
The supplemental letters dated October
11 and November 16, 2012, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 13,
2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company,
Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1
and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Carolina Power & Light Company,
Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2,
Darlington County, South Carolina
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al.,
Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and
Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Florida Power Corporation, et al.,
Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3
Nuclear Generating Plant Citrus County,
Florida
Date of application for amendments:
September 12, 2012.
Brief Description of amendments:
These amendments revised the Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Schedule
as approved in the license amendments
issued on July 29, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML11193A028).
Date of issuance: December 18, 2012.
Effective date: These license
amendments are effective as of the date
of their issuance and shall be
implemented by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Brunswick 1: 261,
Brunswick 2: 289, Robinson 2: 230,
Shearon Harris 1: 140, and Crystal River
3: 242.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–71, DPR–62, DPR–23, and
NPF–63; and Facility Operating License
No. DPR–72.
Amendments revised the facility
operating licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 16, 2012 (77 FR
63347).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of these amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 18,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No.
50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment:
January 10, 2012, supplemented by
letter dated July 6, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, in TS 3.4.3,
‘‘Safety Relief Valves (SRVs)’’, SR
3.5.1.13, in TS 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS-Operating,’’
and SR 3.6.1.6.1, in TS 3.6.1.6, ‘‘LowLow Set (LLS) Valves.’’ The amendment
replaces the current requirement in
these TS SRs to verify the SRV opens
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
when manually actuated with an
alternate requirement that verifies the
SRV is capable of being opened.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from Refueling Outage
16.
Amendment No.: 190.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
43: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25756).
The supplemental letter dated July 6,
2012, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff’s original proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register on May 1, 2012 (77 FR
25756). The Commission’s related
evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 21, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No.
50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment:
January 10, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, ‘‘RHR
[Residual Heat Removal] Suppression
Pool Cooling,’’ to specify a new
minimum developed RHR pump flow
rate in Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.6.2.3.2. This change brings the flow
required in the plant design basis in
alignment with the TS SR. The change
would increase the operating margin of
the RHR Suppression Pool Cooling
system to the SR. Also, this change
would clarify that SR 3.6.2.3.2 applies
to only the RHR pumps required to meet
Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO)
3.6.2.3.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 191.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
43: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25755).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 21,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC
and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request:
December 22, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated October 3, 2012.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment revised the Operating
License Condition 3.S to allow Boiling
Water Reactor Vessel and Internals
Project (BWRVIP)–139–A, ‘‘BWR Vessel
and Internals Project Steam Dryer
Inspection and Flaw Evaluation
Guidelines,’’ to be the basis for future
steam dryer monitoring and inspections
on an inspection interval of at least
every third refueling outage.
Date of Issuance: December 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 252.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
28: Amendment revised the Operating
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 3, 2012 (77 FR 20073).
The supplemental letter dated
October 3, 2012, 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 this amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 19,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request:
November 11, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated November 26, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment relocated the following
Technical Specifications (TS) to the
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
3, Technical Requirements Manual: (a)
TS 3.4.6, ‘‘Chemistry,’’ (b) TS 3.7.5,
‘‘Flood Protection,’’ (c) TS 3.7.9,
‘‘Sealed Source Contamination,’’ and (d)
TS 3.9.5, ‘‘Communications.’’
Date of issuance: December 20, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 238.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
38: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1273
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR 22814).
The supplemental letter dated
November 26, 2012, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register on
April 17, 2012 (77 FR 22814).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 20,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 28,
2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the scope of Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) Implementation
Schedule Milestone #6 and paragraph
2.E of the facility operating license. The
amendment modified the scope of
Milestone #6 to apply to the technical
cyber security controls only. The
operational and management controls,
as described in Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 08–09, Revision 6, would be
implemented concurrent with the full
implementation of the cyber security
program (Milestone #8). Thus, all CSP
activities would be fully implemented
by the completion date, currently
identified in Milestone #8 of the
licensee’s CSP implementation
schedule.
Date of issuance: December 20, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented by
December 31, 2012.
Amendment No.: 239.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
38: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61437).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 20,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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 application for amendments:
June 21, 2012.
Brief description of amendments:
Amendments modify paragraph 3.F,
‘‘Physical Protection,’’ of the licenses of
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
1274
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2013 / Notices
both units. The changes revise the scope
of Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule Milestone No. 6.
Date of Issuance: December 17, 2012.
Effective Date: These license
amendments are effective as of the date
of their issuance and shall be
implemented by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—214 and
Unit 2—164.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments
revised the license.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61438).
The Commission’s related evaluation of
the amendments is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated December 17, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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 application for amendments:
June 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendments:
Amendments modify paragraph 3.E,
‘‘Physical Protection,’’ of the licenses of
both units. The changes revise the scope
of Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule Milestone No. 6.
Date of Issuance: December 17, 2012.
Effective Date: These license
amendments are effective as of the date
of their issuance and shall be
implemented by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 3—256 and
Unit 4—252.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments
revised the license.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 11, 2012 (77 FR
55872). The Commission’s related
evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 17, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Indiana Michigan Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien
County, Michigan
Date of application for amendments:
September 11, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments approve changes to the
Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule for Milestone 6 at the Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
and 2.
Date of issuance: December 13, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented by
December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: 319, 303.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Jan 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
58 and DPR–74: Amendments revise the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61438).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 13,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station,
Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 27,
2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the scope of Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) Implementation
Schedule Milestone #6 and paragraph
2.C.(3) of the renewed facility operating
license. The amendment modified the
scope of Milestone #6 to apply to the
technical cyber security controls only.
The operational and management
controls, as described in Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 08–09, Revision 6, would
be implemented concurrent with the
full implementation of the cyber
security program (Milestone #8). Thus,
all CSP activities would be fully
implemented by the completion date,
currently identified in Milestone #8 of
the licensee’s CSP implementation
schedule.
Date of issuance: December 13, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented by
December 31, 2012.
Amendment No.: 244.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–46: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61439).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 13,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment:
August 30, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment includes a deviation to the
scope of the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule Milestone 6
and a revision to the Facility Operating
License Condition 2.E to include the
deviation.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Effective date: This license
amendment is effective as of the date of
its issuance.
Amendment No.: 193.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–12: Amendment revises the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61440).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 21,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: May 2,
2012, as supplemented by letter dated
October 15, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.6, ‘‘Containment
Spray and Cooling Systems,’’ to replace
the current 10-year surveillance
frequency for testing the containment
spray nozzles, as specified in TS
Surveillance Requirement 3.6.6.8, with
an event-based frequency.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 203.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–42: The amendment revised
the Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 4, 2012 (77 FR
53931). The supplemental letter dated
October 15, 2012, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 21,
2012. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of December 2012.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–31710 Filed 1–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1267-1274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31710]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0321]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined 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 or
combined license, as applicable, 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 13, 2012 to December 26, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73684).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0321.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0321. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 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.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0321 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0321.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public
[[Page 1268]]
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Documents may be viewed in ADAMS by
performing a search on the document date and docket number.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0321 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such
information before making the comment submissions available to the
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined 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), Section 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 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 or
combined 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
20852. 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
[[Page 1269]]
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 (1) request 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 NRC's public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
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 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 NRC'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's public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call to 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. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a
[[Page 1270]]
determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates
good cause by satisfying the following three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the filing is based was not
previously available; (ii) the information upon which the filing is
based is materially different from information previously available;
and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a timely fashion based on
the availability of the subsequent information.
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
20852. 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 PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: November 14, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
relocate the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for motor-
operated valve thermal overload protection from the TSs to the
Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The TRM is a licensee-controlled
document.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the motor operated valve (MOV)
thermal overload (TOL) protection operability and surveillance
requirements from the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) Technical
Specifications (TS) to a licensee-controlled document under the
control of 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed changes do not alter the physical design of any
plant structure, system, or component; therefore, the proposed
changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the
availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The
plant response to the design basis accidents does not change.
Operation or failure of the MOV TOL protection bypass capability is
not assumed to be an initiator of any analyzed event in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and cannot cause an accident.
Whether the requirements for the MOV TOL protection bypass
capability are located in TS or another licensee-controlled document
has no effect on the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory requirements
regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 50.36, and
also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-1433, ``Standard
Technical Specifications--General Electric BWR/4 Plants.''
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the MOV TOL protection operability
and surveillance requirements from the LGS TS to a licensee-
controlled document under the control of 10 CFR 50.59.
The proposed changes do not alter the plant configuration (no
new or different type of equipment is being installed) or require
any new or unusual operator actions. The proposed changes do not
alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated
with the operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not
introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new accident.
The proposed changes do not reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component in the
performance of their safety function.
Also, the response of the plant and the operators following the
design basis accidents is unaffected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation,
or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation
equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not
change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes.
In addition, the relocated requirements do not meet any of the
10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii) criteria on items for which TS must be
established. Operability and surveillance requirements will be
established in a licensee-controlled document to ensure the
reliability of MOV TOL protection bypass capability. Changes to
these requirements will be subject to the controls of 10 CFR 50.59,
providing the appropriate level of regulatory control.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.3.5.1, ``Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' footnote (a) to require
ECCS instrumentation to be operable only when the associated ECCS
subsystems are required to be operable. This proposed change is
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-275-A, Revision 0.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would add exceptions to the
diesel generator (DG) surveillance requirements (SRs) for TS 3.8.2,
``AC Sources--Shutdown,'' to eliminate the requirement that the DG be
capable of responding to ECCS initiation signals while the ECCS
subsystems are not required to be operable. This proposed change is
consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-300-A, Revision 0.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 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.
This proposed amendment involves changes to Technical
Specification Table
[[Page 1271]]
3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System [ECCS] Instrumentation,''
and Surveillance Requirement 3.8.2.1 for alternating current sources
during shutdown.
The proposed changes to Table 3.3.5.1-1 ensures that ECCS
instrumentation is only required to be operable when the ECCS
subsystems and annulus exhaust gas treatments subsystems are
required to be operable. These changes ensure ECCS instrumentation
that actuates ECCS subsystems and annulus exhaust gas treatment
subsystems are required to be operable to perform their function as
described in the safety analysis, and do not involve physical
changes to plant systems, structures or components. The proposed
changes to Table 3.3.5.1-1 do not affect plant operations or design
functions, and do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction.
The surveillance requirement change eliminates the requirement
that the diesel generator be capable of responding to ECCS
initiation signals when the ECCS injection/spray subsystems are not
required to be operable. The modified surveillance requirements do
not involve physical changes to plant systems, structures or
components, and would not cause the plant to be operated in a new or
different manner. No new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators would be introduced by the proposed changes. The
required equipment continues to be tested in a manner and at a
frequency necessary to provide confidence that the equipment can
perform its intended safety function. If the ECCS subsystems are not
required to be operable, there is no benefit to maintaining diesel
generator capability to respond to ECCS initiation signals. The
proposed surveillance requirement change does not affect plant
operations or design functions, and does not increase the likelihood
of a malfunction.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 Technical Specification changes would correctly
identify the applicable modes or other specified conditions for
which ECCS instrumentation is required to be operable and revises
requirements for when certain surveillances are to be performed.
These changes would not result in revisions of plant design,
physical alteration of a plant structure, system, or component, or
installation of new different types equipment. No new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators would be introduced
by the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes have no effect on design basis, safety
limits, or safety analysis assumptions or methods of performing
safety analyses. The changes do not adversely affect system
operability or design requirements and the equipment continues to be
tested in a manner and at a frequency necessary to provide
confidence that the equipment can perform its intended safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in any
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR
50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards
consideration'' is justified.
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
requested amendment 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: Michael I. Dudek.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the licenses and the Technical Specifications (TSs) to (1) close
and remove license conditions that have been fully satisfied as of the
end of the Unit 3 Cycle 26 refueling outage, (2) revise TS 5.5.1 to
remove related license conditions, (3) correct several inadvertent
errors in the TS, and (4) update the reference to the Physical Security
Plan to the latest approved revision in the related license conditions.
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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies
that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat
generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system.
The proposed amendments only limit crediting of burnable absorbers
in the spent fuel pool to Integrated Fuel Burnable Absorber (IFBA)
rods that were specifically addressed in the currently approved
criticality analysis [WCAP-17094-P, Revision 3, ``Turkey Point,
Units 3 and 4 New Fuel Storage Rack and Spent Fuel Pool Criticality
Analysis,'' February 2011]. The removal of the phrase ``or an
equivalent amount of another burnable absorber'' eliminates the
possibility of crediting a burnable absorber other than IFBA for
storage of spent fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool without
prior NRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] approval. The
deletion of the license condition associated with the Boraflex
Remedy is editorial as it is no longer applicable. The proposed
amendments do not affect the ability of the BAST [boric acid storage
tank] to perform its function or the ability of the CREVS [control
room emergency ventilation system] to perform its function. These
latter proposed TS changes correct inadvertent errors and are
consistent with the stated intent of original license submittals or
delete license conditions that have been fully satisfied.
The proposed amendments do not cause any physical change to the
existing spent fuel storage configuration or fuel makeup. The
proposed amendments do not affect any precursors to any accident
previously evaluated or do not affect any known mitigation equipment
or strategies.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may
be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel
pool cooling and cleanup system. The proposed amendments do not
result in any changes to spent fuel or to fuel storage
configurations. The removal of the phrase ``or an equivalent amount
of another burnable absorber'' eliminates the possibility of
crediting a burnable absorber other than IFBA for storage of spent
fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool without prior NRC approval.
The proposed amendments do not affect the ability of the BAST to
perform its function or the ability of the CREVS to perform its
function. These latter proposed TS changes correct inadvertent
errors and are consistent with the stated intent of the original
license submittals, delete license conditions that are no longer
applicable or have been fully satisfied.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes,
[[Page 1272]]
fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may be stored in the
pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and
cleanup system. Therefore, the proposed amendments have no impact to
the existing margin of safety for subcriticality required by 10 CFR
50.68 (b)(4). The other proposed TS changes correct inadvertent
errors and are consistent with the stated intent of the original
license submittals or delete license conditions that are no longer
applicable or have been fully satisfied.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant
reduction in the 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: James Petro, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined 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.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available 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's 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, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: August 10, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated September 4, October 11, and November 16, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the basis
and description for Milestones 6 and 7 of the licensee's Cyber Security
Plan implementation schedule. In addition, the amendments revised
paragraph 2.E of the facility operating licenses.
Date of issuance: December 13, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--190; Unit 2--190; Unit 3--190.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The
amendments revised the Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR
61436). The supplemental letters dated October 11 and November 16,
2012, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324,
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: September 12, 2012.
Brief Description of amendments: These amendments revised the Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Schedule as approved in the license
amendments issued on July 29, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11193A028).
Date of issuance: December 18, 2012.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of their issuance and shall be implemented by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Brunswick 1: 261, Brunswick 2: 289, Robinson 2:
230, Shearon Harris 1: 140, and Crystal River 3: 242.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, DPR-23, and
NPF-63; and Facility Operating License No. DPR-72.
Amendments revised the facility operating licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 16, 2012 (77 FR
63347).
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: January 10, 2012, supplemented
by letter dated July 6, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, in TS 3.4.3, ``Safety Relief Valves (SRVs)'',
SR 3.5.1.13, in TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS-Operating,'' and SR 3.6.1.6.1, in TS
3.6.1.6, ``Low-Low Set (LLS) Valves.'' The amendment replaces the
current requirement in these TS SRs to verify the SRV opens
[[Page 1273]]
when manually actuated with an alternate requirement that verifies the
SRV is capable of being opened.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from Refueling Outage 16.
Amendment No.: 190.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 1, 2012 (77 FR
25756).
The supplemental letter dated July 6, 2012, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's original proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2012 (77 FR 25756). The Commission's related
evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
December 21, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: January 10, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, ``RHR [Residual Heat Removal] Suppression
Pool Cooling,'' to specify a new minimum developed RHR pump flow rate
in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.2.3.2. This change brings the flow
required in the plant design basis in alignment with the TS SR. The
change would increase the operating margin of the RHR Suppression Pool
Cooling system to the SR. Also, this change would clarify that SR
3.6.2.3.2 applies to only the RHR pumps required to meet Limiting
Condition of Operation (LCO) 3.6.2.3.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 191.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 1, 2012 (77 FR
25755).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: December 22, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated October 3, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the
Operating License Condition 3.S to allow Boiling Water Reactor Vessel
and Internals Project (BWRVIP)-139-A, ``BWR Vessel and Internals
Project Steam Dryer Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines,'' to be
the basis for future steam dryer monitoring and inspections on an
inspection interval of at least every third refueling outage.
Date of Issuance: December 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 252.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 3, 2012 (77 FR
20073).
The supplemental letter dated October 3, 2012, 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 this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 11, 2011, as supplemented by
letter dated November 26, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocated the
following Technical Specifications (TS) to the Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, Technical Requirements Manual: (a) TS 3.4.6,
``Chemistry,'' (b) TS 3.7.5, ``Flood Protection,'' (c) TS 3.7.9,
``Sealed Source Contamination,'' and (d) TS 3.9.5, ``Communications.''
Date of issuance: December 20, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 238.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR
22814). The supplemental letter dated November 26, 2012, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2012
(77 FR 22814).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the scope of
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 6
and paragraph 2.E of the facility operating license. The amendment
modified the scope of Milestone 6 to apply to the technical
cyber security controls only. The operational and management controls,
as described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08-09, Revision 6, would
be implemented concurrent with the full implementation of the cyber
security program (Milestone 8). Thus, all CSP activities would
be fully implemented by the completion date, currently identified in
Milestone 8 of the licensee's CSP implementation schedule.
Date of issuance: December 20, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by December 31, 2012.
Amendment No.: 239.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR
61437).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: June 21, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: Amendments modify paragraph 3.F,
``Physical Protection,'' of the licenses of
[[Page 1274]]
both units. The changes revise the scope of Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule Milestone No. 6.
Date of Issuance: December 17, 2012.
Effective Date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of their issuance and shall be implemented by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--214 and Unit 2--164.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR
61438). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendments: June 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: Amendments modify paragraph 3.E,
``Physical Protection,'' of the licenses of both units. The changes
revise the scope of Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule
Milestone No. 6.
Date of Issuance: December 17, 2012.
Effective Date: These license amendments are effective as of the
date of their issuance and shall be implemented by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 3--256 and Unit 4--252.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2012 (77
FR 55872). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of application for amendments: September 11, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve changes to
the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule for Milestone 6 at the
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: December 13, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by December 31, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: 319, 303.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments revise
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR
61438).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 27, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the scope of
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule Milestone 6
and paragraph 2.C.(3) of the renewed facility operating license. The
amendment modified the scope of Milestone 6 to apply to the
technical cyber security controls only. The operational and management
controls, as described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08-09,
Revision 6, would be implemented concurrent with the full
implementation of the cyber security program (Milestone 8).
Thus, all CSP activities would be fully implemented by the completion
date, currently identified in Milestone 8 of the licensee's
CSP implementation schedule.
Date of issuance: December 13, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by December 31, 2012.
Amendment No.: 244.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR
61439).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 13, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: August 30, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment includes a deviation
to the scope of the Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule
Milestone 6 and a revision to the Facility Operating License Condition
2.E to include the deviation.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance.
Amendment No.: 193.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2012 (77 FR
61440).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: May 2, 2012, as supplemented by letter
dated October 15, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and Cooling Systems,'' to
replace the current 10-year surveillance frequency for testing the
containment spray nozzles, as specified in TS Surveillance Requirement
3.6.6.8, with an event-based frequency.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2012.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 203.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77
FR 53931). The supplemental letter dated October 15, 2012, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2012. No significant hazards
consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 2012.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-31710 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P