Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 35058-35066 [2013-13689]
Download as PDF
35058
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
(9) What changes, if any, should be
made to the frequency of team
inspections?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day
of June, 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Kobetz,
Acting Director, Division of Inspection and
Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2013–13794 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[NRC–2013–0122]
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 (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 May 16,
2013 to May 28, 2013. The last biweekly
notice was published on May 28, 2013
(78 FR 31978).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0122. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
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:
Jkt 229001
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2013–
0122 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–2013–0122.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable 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
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–2013–
0122 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 that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as entering
the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely 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
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely 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
Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this
means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
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 ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ 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. The
NRC regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC’s Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35059
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’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 the NRC
guidance available on the NRC’s public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. A filing is
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35060
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC’s Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
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. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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
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’s PDR
Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS–2), New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated February 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 1.39,
‘‘Storage Pattern,’’ TS 3.9.18, ‘‘Spent
Fuel Pool—Storage,’’ TS 3.9.19, ‘‘Spent
Fuel Pool—Storage Patterns,’’ TS 5.3.1,
‘‘Fuel Assemblies,’’ TS 5.6.1,
‘‘Criticality,’’ and TS 5.6.3, ‘‘Capacity’’
for MPS–2, as a result of a new
criticality safety analysis for fuel
assembly storage in the MPS–2 fuel
storage racks.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the
physical plant, including the spent fuel pool,
spent fuel racks, or fuel handling equipment.
While there will be more regions to consider
in the spent fuel pool, the process of
choosing fuel assembly locations will not
change other than the regionalization and
burnup curves will be revised. Also, the
process of handling fuel assemblies will not
change. The MPS–2 program for choosing
fuel assembly storage locations, and for fuel
handling and assuring that the fuel
assemblies are placed into correct locations
will remain in place. The success of this
program in preventing misloading and
dropping of a fuel assembly has been
historically demonstrated. Thus, the
probability of a fuel assembly misloading or
a fuel assembly drop will not significantly
increase with the proposed change.
Multiple postulated accidents were
reviewed for the proposed change which
included several fuel misloading scenarios
and a fuel assembly drop.
The criticality analysis concluded that the
limiting accident is a misloaded fresh fuel
assembly. The analysis also concluded that
this accident requires an additional 800 ppm
[parts per million] of soluble boron. The total
amount of soluble boron required is the 800
ppm to compensate for the reactivity increase
from the fuel assembly misload, plus 600
ppm for normal conditions, for a total of 1400
ppm, which is the same conclusion as the
current analysis. The current TS require a
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
minimum concentration of 1720 ppm soluble
boron at all times that fuel is in the spent fuel
pool. The proposed TS will maintain this
soluble boron requirement.
A boron dilution accident was reviewed.
There are no changes to the plant, plant
equipment or operations required by the
proposed change. Also, the criticality
analysis concluded that the current soluble
boron requirement (> 1720 ppm) bounds the
consequences associated with the proposed
change.
Thus, there is no change to consequences
of a boron dilution accident.
In the case of each accident, Keff [keffective] continues to be less than the
licensing limit of 0.95. Thus, it is concluded
that the consequences of a previously
evaluated accident remains that same.
Since the proposed change reduces the
number of fuel assemblies that can be stored
in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses bound the
proposed change.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
There is no change to the physical plant,
including the equipment and procedures
used to handle fuel (or any heavy load) over
fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies
are stored in the storage racks. Thus, there
are no new accidents created over and above
the existing postulated accidents of a fuel
misload or a fuel assembly drop onto the
racks.
Use of cell blocking devices will no longer
be required. The cell blocking devices are
removable, and can be removed from the
spent fuel racks. Fuel storage loading
requirements will continue to be maintained
by administrative means. Cell blocking
devices are not considered to be a sufficient
barrier to preclude a fuel misload accident,
as they are not permanent. The consequences
of such an accident are the same, whether or
not a cell blocker is present. The MPS–2
spent fuel pool has been analyzed to
accommodate a single misload of the highest
enrichment fresh fuel assembly in any region
as well as multiple assembly misloads along
the boundary between regions. Thus,
removing the requirement to use cell
blocking devices will not create a new
accident over and above the existing
postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a
fuel assembly drop onto the racks.
Reducing the number of fuel assemblies
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks
will not create any new or different type of
accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensing requirement for the spent
fuel pool is that Keff remain less than or equal
to 0.95 under all postulated accident
conditions (misloaded or dropped fuel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
assembly, and boron dilution). These
accidents were analyzed for the proposed
change, and the Keff < 0.95 requirement is
met in all cases. In addition, the criticality
analysis concluded that, under normal
conditions, the fuel pool Keff will remain less
than 1.0 with 0 ppm boron in the pool.
Since the proposed change reduces the
number of fuel assemblies that can be stored
in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses’ margin of
safety bound the proposed change.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS–2), New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March
21, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.7—
Control Rod Drive Mechanisms
(CRDMs) to provide consistency with
the operability requirements of TS Table
3.3–1, Reactor Protective
Instrumentation, when control rod drive
mechanisms are energized and capable
of withdrawal for MPS–2.
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:
Criterion 1
Will operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes
to revise the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs,
to provide consistency with the operability
requirements of TS Table 3.3–1, Reactor
Protective Instrumentation, when CRDMs are
energized and capable of withdrawal. The
proposed change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7
does not modify the physical design or
operation of the plant and does not increase
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change has no impact on the
operation of the CRDMs. In addition, the
design basis accident remains unchanged for
the postulated events described in the MPS2
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35061
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Since
the initial conditions and assumptions
included in the safety analyses are
unchanged, the consequences of the
postulated events remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Will operation of the facility in accordance
with this proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the
physical configuration of the plant (no new
or different type of equipment will be
installed) or introduce any operating
configurations not previously evaluated. The
proposed change does not alter the way any
system, structure, or component (SSC)
functions and does not alter the manner in
which the plant is operated. The proposed
change does not introduce any new failure
modes and no new accident precursors are
generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
Will operation of the facility in accordance
with this proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the footnote in TS
3.1.3.7, CRDMs, does not involve a change in
the operational limits or physical design of
the plant. The proposed change does not alter
the function or operation of plant equipment
or affect the response of that equipment if it
is called upon to operate. The proposed
change does not decrease the scope of
equipment currently required to operate or
subject to surveillance testing, nor does the
proposed change affect any instrument
setpoints or equipment safety functions. The
ability of operable SSCs to perform their
designated safety function is unaffected by
this proposed change. The proposed change
does not reduce the margin of safety since it
does not affect the assumptions in any
accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
35062
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS–2), New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 3,
2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification 3.9.16
‘‘Shielded Cask,’’ due to changes to the
minimum decay time for fuel assemblies
adjacent to the spent fuel pool cask
laydown area for MPS–2.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the
physical plant, including the spent fuel pool,
spent fuel racks, or fuel handling equipment.
The change increases the calculated dose
consequences for the limiting radiological
event, but the increase is not significant since
the existing value is a minimal fraction of the
acceptance criterion. The revised calculated
dose remains a small fraction of the
acceptance criterion.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
There is no change to the physical plant,
including the equipment and procedures
used to handle fuel (or any heavy load) over
fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies
are stored in the storage racks. Thus, there
are no new accidents created over and above
the existing postulated spent fuel cask
accidents which have been evaluated for the
proposed change. Reducing the minimum
decay time for fuel assemblies in the vicinity
of the spent fuel cask affects the radiological
source term (amount and type of
radioisotopes present in the fuel), but has no
influence on the postulated accident scenario
itself.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensing requirement for the minimum
decay time is that radiological dose criteria
are met. The limiting accident scenario was
analyzed for the proposed change, and the
dose criteria continue to be met. Specifically,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
the calculated dose consequences for the
proposed change are and remain a small
fraction of the acceptance criteria.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments:
January 15, 2013, as supplemented on
March 1, 2013, and April 18, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5,
‘‘Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Pressure
and Temperature Limits Report
(PTLR),’’ to allow the use of two new
methodologies for determining RCS
pressure and temperature limits.
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 change does not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained. The proposed change does
not alter or prevent the ability of structures,
systems or components from performing their
intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits.
There will be no adverse change to normal
plant operating parameters, engineered safety
feature actuation setpoints, accident
mitigation capabilities, or accident analysis
assumptions or inputs. The proposed change
does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions
used in evaluating the radiological
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does
not increase the types or amounts of
radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite, nor significantly increase individual
or cumulative occupational/public radiation
exposures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impose any
new or different requirements or eliminate
any existing requirements. The proposed
change is consistent with the current safety
analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice. No new accident
scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed
change. Equipment important to safety will
continue to operate as designed. The change
does not result in any event previously
deemed incredible being made credible. The
change does not result in adverse conditions
or result in any increase in the challenges to
safety systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter safety
limits, limiting safety system settings, or
limiting conditions for operation. The
setpoints at which protective actions are
initiated are not altered by the proposed
change. There are no new or significant
changes to the initial conditions contributing
to accident severity or consequences. The
proposed amendment will not otherwise
affect the plant protective boundaries, will
not cause a release of fission products to the
public, nor will it degrade the performance
of any other structures, systems or
components important to safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: William Blair,
Senior Attorney, NextEra Energy Point
Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert D.
Carlson.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC,
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County,
New York
Date of amendment request: March 8,
2013, as supplemented by letter dated
May 16, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment to the Nine
Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Renewed
Facility Operating License DPR–63
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
would modify Technical Specification
(TS) Table 3.6.2i, ‘‘Diesel Generator
Initiation,’’ by revising the existing
4.16kV Power Board (PB) 102/103
Emergency Bus Undervoltage (Degraded
Voltage) Operating Time value and
updating the Set Point heading title. In
addition, subsequent to the issuance of
the proposed amendment by U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
NMP1 Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) Table XV–9,
‘‘Significant Input Parameters to the
Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LOCA)
Analysis,’’ would be revised, based on
the issued amendment, to add a note
regarding maximum allowable delay
time from initiating signal to pump at
rated speed settings, to address the
scenario of degraded grid voltage
coincident with a LOCA using the
revised TS Table 3.6.2i operating time.
The TS and UFSAR revisions are being
made to resolve the Green non-cited
violation (NCV) associated with the vital
bus degraded voltage protection time
delay documented in NRC Inspection
Report (IR) 05000220/201101, ‘‘Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station—NRC
Unresolved Item Follow-up Inspection
Report,’’ dated January 23, 2012
(Reference 1), specifically,
NCV05000220/20 11011–01, ‘‘Vital Bus
Degraded Voltage Time Delay Not
Maintained within LOCA Analysis
Assumptions.’’
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the TS by
changing the maximum time delay for
degraded voltage from <60 seconds to ≤24
seconds. The proposed change does not affect
the probability or consequences of any
accident. Analysis was conducted and
determined that the Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS) will perform its safety
function with a time delay of 60 seconds
from event initiation to core spray pump at
rated speed resulting in insignificant
differences in the peak fuel clad temperature
(PCT) and maximum local oxidation (MLO)
for both GE11 and GNF2 fuel types in use at
NMP1. Additionally, the PCT and the MLO
remain below the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
criteria of 2200 °F and 17% respectively.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and
do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the plant or
the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained. The ability of structures,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
systems, and components to perform their
intended safety functions is not altered or
prevented by the proposed changes, and the
assumptions used in determining the
radiological consequences of previously
evaluated accidents are not affected.
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 change adds an additional time delay
due to voltage degradation prior to diesel
start. The LOCA analysis model is
unchanged. The maximum time delay from
event initiation to core spray pump at rated
speed input was changed from 35 to 60
seconds to model the Loss-Of-Coolant
Accident (LOCA) event coincident with a
sustained degraded voltage in order to
determine that the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
criteria is met for this scenario. These
changes do not involve any physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed),
and installed equipment is not being
operated in a new or different manner. Thus,
no new failure modes are introduced.
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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the
function of the reactor coolant pressure
boundary or its response during plant
transients. The proposed changes do not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions
for operation are determined; and the
operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation
are not affected. The proposed change
modifies the TS by changing the maximum
time delay for degraded voltage from <60
seconds to ≤24 seconds. By calculating the
PCT and MLO using NRC-approved
methodology for the LOCA coincident with
a sustained degraded voltage, adequate
margins of safety relating to fuel cladding
integrity are maintained.
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: Carey W.
Fleming, Senior Counsel, Constellation
Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100
Constellation Way, Suite 200C,
Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35063
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: October
30, 2012.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment proposes to revise the
MNGP Technical Specification (TS)
4.3.1, ‘‘Fuel Storage Criticality,’’ and TS
4.3.3, ‘‘Fuel Storage Capacity,’’ to
support fuel storage system changes and
a revised criticality safety analysis that
addresses both legacy fuel types and
new fuel designs.
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, with NRC edits in brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change
the fuel handling processes, fuel storage
racks, decay heat generation rate, or the SFP
[spent fuel pool] cooling and cleanup system.
The proposed amendment was evaluated for
impact on the following previously-evaluated
events and accidents: (1) Fuel handling
accident (FHA), (2) fuel assembly misleading,
(3) seismically-induced movement of spent
fuel storage racks, and (4) loss of spent fuel
pool cooling.
Whereas fuel handling procedures will not
be changed materially for the new fuel type
or the revised criticality methods, the
probability of a FHA is not increased because
the implementation of the proposed
amendment will employ the same equipment
and procedures to handle fuel assemblies
that are currently used. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not increase the
probability or occurrence of a FHA. In that
the proposed amendment does not increase
the mechanistic damage to a fuel assembly or
the radiological source term of any fuel
assembly, the amendment would not increase
the radiological consequences of a FHA. With
regard to the potential criticality
consequences of a dropped assembly coming
to rest adjacent to a storage rack or on top
of a storage rack, the results are bounded by
the current analysis involving a potential
missing neutron poison plate in the storage
rack. The fuel configuration caused by a
dropped assembly resting on top of loaded
storage racks is inherently bounded by the
assembly misloaded in the storage rack
because the misloaded assembly is in closer
proximity to other assemblies along its entire
fuel length.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by
approved fuel selection and fuel handling
procedures. The consequences of a fuel
misloading event (fuel assembly loaded into
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
35064
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
an unapproved location) are not changed
because the reactivity analysis demonstrates
that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the
worst-case fuel misloading event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of occurrence of a seismic event, which is
considered an Act of God. Also, the
consequences of a seismic event are not
changed because the proposed amendment
involves no significant change to the types of
material stored in SFP storage racks or their
mass. In this manner, the forcing functions
for seismic excitation and the resulting forces
are not changed. Also, particular to
criticality, the supporting criticality analysis
takes no credit for gaps between high-density
rack modules so any seismically-induced
movement between high-density racks that
puts them in closer proximity would not
result in an unanalyzed condition with
consequences worse than those analyzed.
Also, the small displacement of the highdensity rack closest to the fixed location of
the low-density rack will not put those racks
in a closer proximity than that analyzed. In
summary, the proposed amendment will not
increase the probability or consequence of a
seismic event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed
amendment will not change the probability
of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because
the changes in fuel criticality limits and
introduction of the ATRIUM 10XM fuel
design have no bearing on the systems,
structures, and components involved in
initiating such an event. The proposed
amendment does not change the heat load
imposed by spent fuel assemblies nor does it
change the flow paths in the spent fuel pool.
Therefore, the accident consequences are not
increased for the proposed amendment.
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 amendment involves no new
SFP loading configurations for current and
legacy fuel designs of the nuclear plant. The
proposed amendment does not change or
modify the fuel handling processes, fuel
storage racks, decay heat generation rate, or
the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup
system. Further, the new fuel type does not
introduce any incompatible materials to the
spent fuel pool environment.
As such, the proposed changes introduce
no new material interactions, man-machine
interfaces, or processes that could create the
potential for an accident of a new or different
type.
Operation with the proposed amendment
will not create a new or different kind of
accident because fuel movement will
continue to be controlled by approved fuel
handling procedures. There are no changes in
the criteria or design requirements pertaining
to fuel storage safety, including subcriticality
requirements, and analyses demonstrate that
the proposed storage arrays meet these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
requirements and criteria with adequate
margins. Thus, the proposed storage arrays
cannot cause a new or different kind of
accident.
[Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.]
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment was evaluated
for its effect on current margins of safety for
criticality. Although the amendment involves
changing the subcriticality acceptance limit
for the low-density storage rack from a value
of 0.90 to 0.95, the margin of safety for
subcriticality is not significantly reduced in
that the limit is consistent with that of the
other storage racks and the regulation
described by 10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4). The new
criticality analysis confirms that operation in
accordance with the proposed amendment
continues to meet the required subcriticality
margin.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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: Peter M. Glass,
Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March
11, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment proposes to reduce the
reactor steam dome pressure specified
in MNGP Technical Specifications (TS)
2.0, ‘‘SAFETY LIMITS.’’ Specifically,
the reactor steam dome pressure value
specified in TS 2.1.1.1 and TS 2.1.1.2
will be reduced from the current 785
psig to 686 psig. The requested change
supports resolution of a 10 CFR Part 21
condition concerning a potential to
momentarily violate a reactor core safety
limit during a pressure regulator failure
maximum demand (open) transient.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the reactor steam
dome pressure in Reactor Core Safety Limits
2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the use of
the analytical methods used to determine the
safety limits that have been previously
reviewed and approved by the NRC. The
proposed change is in accordance with an
NRC-approved critical power correlation
methodology and, as such, maintains
required safety margins. The proposed
change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor does it alter the
design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) from performing their
intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
change does not require any physical change
to any plant SSCs nor does it require any
change in systems or plant operations. The
proposed change is consistent with the safety
analysis assumptions and resultant
consequences.
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.
There are no hardware changes nor are
there any changes in the method by which
any plant systems perform a safety function.
No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed
change.
The proposed change does not introduce
any new accident precursors, nor does it
involve any physical plant alterations or
changes in the methods governing normal
plant operation. Also, the change does not
impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The
change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system, and primary containment) to
perform their design functions during and
following postulated accidents. Evaluation of
the 10 CFR Part 21 condition by General
Electric determined that there was no
decrease in the safety margin, the Minimum
Critical Power Ratio improves during the
transient, and therefore is not a threat to fuel
cladding integrity.
The proposed change to Reactor Core
Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 is consistent
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
with, and within the capabilities of the
applicable NRC-approved critical power
correlation, and thus continues to ensure that
valid critical power calculations are
performed. No setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated are altered by the
proposed change. The proposed change does
not alter the manner in which the safety
limits are determined. This change is
consistent with plant design and does not
change the TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not
affected by this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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: Peter M. Glass,
Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
18:43 Jun 10, 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 NRC’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.
Carolina Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket No. 50–261, H.B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington
County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment:
June 8, 2012, as supplemented by letters
dated October 12, 2012, October 22,
2012, and April 24, 2013.
Brief Description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to add a 1-hour
soak time to Limiting Conditions for
Operation 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 allowing the
control rod drive mechanisms
additional time following substantial
rod motion to reach thermal
equilibrium.
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of date of issuance
and shall be implemented within 120
days.
Amendment No.: 233.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–23: Amendment changed the
license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR 47126).
The supplements dated October 12,
2012, October 22, 2012, and April 24,
2013, 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 May 16, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35065
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
March 5, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated May 29, 2012, June 21,
2012, July 6, 2012, July 16, 2012, August
15, 2012, September 27, 2012,
November 1, 2012, January 2, 2013, and
March 7, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the technical
specifications to implement a
measurement uncertainty recapture
power uprate at the McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire 1 and
2).
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented for
McGuire 1 within 30 days of the
completion of the facility’s end-of-cycle
23 refueling outage, currently scheduled
for the fall of 2014, and shall be
implemented for McGuire 2 within 30
days of the completion of the facility’s
end-of-cycle 22 refueling outage,
currently scheduled for the spring of
2014.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 249.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 15, 2012 (77 FR 28630).
The supplements dated May 29, 2012,
June 21, 2012, July 6, 2012, July 16,
2012, August 15, 2012, September 27,
2012, November 1, 2012, January 2,
2013, and March 7, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
November 3, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated December 22, 2011, April
4, 2012, May 17, 2012, June 21, 2012,
August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012,
and April 18, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modify the Technical
Specifications (TSs) and Facility
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
35066
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Operating Licenses (FOLs) to allow the
use of neutron absorbing inserts in the
spent fuel pool storage racks for the
purpose of criticality control in the
spent fuel pools.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendments Nos.: 287 and 290.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR 33247).
The letters dated December 22, 2011,
April 4, 2012, May 17, 2012, June 21,
2012, August 15, 2012, November 13,
2012, and April 18, 2013, provided
clarifying information that did not
change the initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination or expand the application
beyond the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 21, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No.
50–440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
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 3.3.5.1–1, ‘‘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.
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 164.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:13 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: January 8, 2013 (78 FR 1270).
The Commission’s related evaluation of
the amendment is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated May 6, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day
of June 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013–13689 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2013–0106]
Applications and Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request;
opportunity to comment, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to
intervene, order.
AGENCY:
Comments must be filed by July
11, 2013. A request for a hearing must
be filed by August 12, 2013. Any
potential party as defined in § 2.4 of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), who believes
access to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) is
necessary to respond to this notice must
request document access by June 21,
2013.
DATES:
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0106. 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, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
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–2013–
0106 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 any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2013–0106.
• 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
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced.
• 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–2013–
0106 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 that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in you comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
E:\FR\FM\11JNN1.SGM
11JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35058-35066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13689]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0122]
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 (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 May 16, 2013 to May 28, 2013. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 28, 2013 (78 FR 31978).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0122. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
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.
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-2013-0122 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-2013-0122.
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 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-2013-0122 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 that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely 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 that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely 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 Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
[[Page 35059]]
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 ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' 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. The
NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at https://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 the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is
[[Page 35060]]
considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the
NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be
submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also
distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the
NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the
Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a
digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene
is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-
Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS-2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated February 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 1.39, ``Storage Pattern,'' TS 3.9.18,
``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage,'' TS 3.9.19, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage
Patterns,'' TS 5.3.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' TS 5.6.1, ``Criticality,''
and TS 5.6.3, ``Capacity'' for MPS-2, as a result of a new criticality
safety analysis for fuel assembly storage in the MPS-2 fuel storage
racks.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the physical plant,
including the spent fuel pool, spent fuel racks, or fuel handling
equipment. While there will be more regions to consider in the spent
fuel pool, the process of choosing fuel assembly locations will not
change other than the regionalization and burnup curves will be
revised. Also, the process of handling fuel assemblies will not
change. The MPS-2 program for choosing fuel assembly storage
locations, and for fuel handling and assuring that the fuel
assemblies are placed into correct locations will remain in place.
The success of this program in preventing misloading and dropping of
a fuel assembly has been historically demonstrated. Thus, the
probability of a fuel assembly misloading or a fuel assembly drop
will not significantly increase with the proposed change.
Multiple postulated accidents were reviewed for the proposed
change which included several fuel misloading scenarios and a fuel
assembly drop.
The criticality analysis concluded that the limiting accident is
a misloaded fresh fuel assembly. The analysis also concluded that
this accident requires an additional 800 ppm [parts per million] of
soluble boron. The total amount of soluble boron required is the 800
ppm to compensate for the reactivity increase from the fuel assembly
misload, plus 600 ppm for normal conditions, for a total of 1400
ppm, which is the same conclusion as the current analysis. The
current TS require a
[[Page 35061]]
minimum concentration of 1720 ppm soluble boron at all times that
fuel is in the spent fuel pool. The proposed TS will maintain this
soluble boron requirement.
A boron dilution accident was reviewed. There are no changes to
the plant, plant equipment or operations required by the proposed
change. Also, the criticality analysis concluded that the current
soluble boron requirement (> 1720 ppm) bounds the consequences
associated with the proposed change.
Thus, there is no change to consequences of a boron dilution
accident.
In the case of each accident, Keff [k-effective]
continues to be less than the licensing limit of 0.95. Thus, it is
concluded that the consequences of a previously evaluated accident
remains that same.
Since the proposed change reduces the number of fuel assemblies
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses bound the proposed change.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There is no change to the physical plant, including the
equipment and procedures used to handle fuel (or any heavy load)
over fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies are stored in
the storage racks. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and
above the existing postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel
assembly drop onto the racks.
Use of cell blocking devices will no longer be required. The
cell blocking devices are removable, and can be removed from the
spent fuel racks. Fuel storage loading requirements will continue to
be maintained by administrative means. Cell blocking devices are not
considered to be a sufficient barrier to preclude a fuel misload
accident, as they are not permanent. The consequences of such an
accident are the same, whether or not a cell blocker is present. The
MPS-2 spent fuel pool has been analyzed to accommodate a single
misload of the highest enrichment fresh fuel assembly in any region
as well as multiple assembly misloads along the boundary between
regions. Thus, removing the requirement to use cell blocking devices
will not create a new accident over and above the existing
postulated accidents of a fuel misload or a fuel assembly drop onto
the racks.
Reducing the number of fuel assemblies that can be stored in the
fuel storage racks will not create any new or different type of
accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
The licensing requirement for the spent fuel pool is that
Keff remain less than or equal to 0.95 under all
postulated accident conditions (misloaded or dropped fuel assembly,
and boron dilution). These accidents were analyzed for the proposed
change, and the Keff < 0.95 requirement is met in all
cases. In addition, the criticality analysis concluded that, under
normal conditions, the fuel pool Keff will remain less
than 1.0 with 0 ppm boron in the pool.
Since the proposed change reduces the number of fuel assemblies
that can be stored in the fuel storage racks, the current seismic/
structural and heat load analyses' margin of safety bound the
proposed change.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS-2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 21, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3.7--Control Rod Drive Mechanisms
(CRDMs) to provide consistency with the operability requirements of TS
Table 3.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation, when control rod drive
mechanisms are energized and capable of withdrawal for MPS-2.
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:
Criterion 1
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the footnote
in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs, to provide consistency with the operability
requirements of TS Table 3.3-1, Reactor Protective Instrumentation,
when CRDMs are energized and capable of withdrawal. The proposed
change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7 does not modify the physical
design or operation of the plant and does not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change has no impact on the operation of the CRDMs.
In addition, the design basis accident remains unchanged for the
postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included in the
safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the postulated
events remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the physical configuration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or introduce any operating configurations not previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the way any system, structure, or
component (SSC) functions and does not alter the manner in which the
plant is operated. The proposed change does not introduce any new
failure modes and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the footnote in TS 3.1.3.7, CRDMs, does
not involve a change in the operational limits or physical design of
the plant. The proposed change does not alter the function or
operation of plant equipment or affect the response of that
equipment if it is called upon to operate. The proposed change does
not decrease the scope of equipment currently required to operate or
subject to surveillance testing, nor does the proposed change affect
any instrument setpoints or equipment safety functions. The ability
of operable SSCs to perform their designated safety function is
unaffected by this proposed change. The proposed change does not
reduce the margin of safety since it does not affect the assumptions
in any accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
[[Page 35062]]
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2 (MPS-2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 3, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification 3.9.16 ``Shielded Cask,'' due to changes to the
minimum decay time for fuel assemblies adjacent to the spent fuel pool
cask laydown area for MPS-2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not affect the physical plant,
including the spent fuel pool, spent fuel racks, or fuel handling
equipment. The change increases the calculated dose consequences for
the limiting radiological event, but the increase is not significant
since the existing value is a minimal fraction of the acceptance
criterion. The revised calculated dose remains a small fraction of
the acceptance criterion.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There is no change to the physical plant, including the
equipment and procedures used to handle fuel (or any heavy load)
over fuel storage racks, or how the fuel assemblies are stored in
the storage racks. Thus, there are no new accidents created over and
above the existing postulated spent fuel cask accidents which have
been evaluated for the proposed change. Reducing the minimum decay
time for fuel assemblies in the vicinity of the spent fuel cask
affects the radiological source term (amount and type of
radioisotopes present in the fuel), but has no influence on the
postulated accident scenario itself.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety. The licensing requirement for the minimum decay
time is that radiological dose criteria are met. The limiting
accident scenario was analyzed for the proposed change, and the dose
criteria continue to be met. Specifically, the calculated dose
consequences for the proposed change are and remain a small fraction
of the acceptance criteria.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendments: January 15, 2013, as
supplemented on March 1, 2013, and April 18, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR),'' to allow the use
of two new methodologies for determining RCS pressure and temperature
limits.
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 change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or the manner in which the plant is operated and
maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, systems or components from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
There will be no adverse change to normal plant operating
parameters, engineered safety feature actuation setpoints, accident
mitigation capabilities, or accident analysis assumptions or inputs.
The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the types or amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The proposed
change is consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions
and current plant operating practice. No new accident scenarios,
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
Equipment important to safety will continue to operate as designed.
The change does not result in any event previously deemed incredible
being made credible. The change does not result in adverse
conditions or result in any increase in the challenges to safety
systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation. The
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered
by the proposed change. There are no new or significant changes to
the initial conditions contributing to accident severity or
consequences. The proposed amendment will not otherwise affect the
plant protective boundaries, will not cause a release of fission
products to the public, nor will it degrade the performance of any
other structures, systems or components important to safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: March 8, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated May 16, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment to the
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-63
[[Page 35063]]
would modify Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.6.2i, ``Diesel
Generator Initiation,'' by revising the existing 4.16kV Power Board
(PB) 102/103 Emergency Bus Undervoltage (Degraded Voltage) Operating
Time value and updating the Set Point heading title. In addition,
subsequent to the issuance of the proposed amendment by U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the NMP1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) Table XV-9, ``Significant Input Parameters to the Loss-Of-
Coolant Accident (LOCA) Analysis,'' would be revised, based on the
issued amendment, to add a note regarding maximum allowable delay time
from initiating signal to pump at rated speed settings, to address the
scenario of degraded grid voltage coincident with a LOCA using the
revised TS Table 3.6.2i operating time. The TS and UFSAR revisions are
being made to resolve the Green non-cited violation (NCV) associated
with the vital bus degraded voltage protection time delay documented in
NRC Inspection Report (IR) 05000220/201101, ``Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station--NRC Unresolved Item Follow-up Inspection Report,'' dated
January 23, 2012 (Reference 1), specifically, NCV05000220/20 11011-01,
``Vital Bus Degraded Voltage Time Delay Not Maintained within LOCA
Analysis Assumptions.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the TS by changing the maximum time
delay for degraded voltage from <60 seconds to <=24 seconds. The
proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of
any accident. Analysis was conducted and determined that the
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) will perform its safety
function with a time delay of 60 seconds from event initiation to
core spray pump at rated speed resulting in insignificant
differences in the peak fuel clad temperature (PCT) and maximum
local oxidation (MLO) for both GE11 and GNF2 fuel types in use at
NMP1. Additionally, the PCT and the MLO remain below the 10 CFR
50.46 acceptance criteria of 2200 [deg]F and 17% respectively.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
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 change adds an additional time delay due to voltage
degradation prior to diesel start. The LOCA analysis model is
unchanged. The maximum time delay from event initiation to core
spray pump at rated speed input was changed from 35 to 60 seconds to
model the Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) event coincident with a
sustained degraded voltage in order to determine that the 10 CFR
50.46 acceptance criteria is met for this scenario. These changes do
not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), and installed
equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. Thus,
no new failure modes are introduced.
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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the function of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined; and the operability requirements for
equipment assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not
affected. The proposed change modifies the TS by changing the
maximum time delay for degraded voltage from <60 seconds to <=24
seconds. By calculating the PCT and MLO using NRC-approved
methodology for the LOCA coincident with a sustained degraded
voltage, adequate margins of safety relating to fuel cladding
integrity are maintained.
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: Carey W. Fleming, Senior Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200C, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to revise
the MNGP Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage
Criticality,'' and TS 4.3.3, ``Fuel Storage Capacity,'' to support fuel
storage system changes and a revised criticality safety analysis that
addresses both legacy fuel types and new fuel designs.
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, with NRC edits in brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change the fuel handling
processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate, or the
SFP [spent fuel pool] cooling and cleanup system. The proposed
amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-
evaluated events and accidents: (1) Fuel handling accident (FHA),
(2) fuel assembly misleading, (3) seismically-induced movement of
spent fuel storage racks, and (4) loss of spent fuel pool cooling.
Whereas fuel handling procedures will not be changed materially
for the new fuel type or the revised criticality methods, the
probability of a FHA is not increased because the implementation of
the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and procedures
to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not increase the probability or occurrence
of a FHA. In that the proposed amendment does not increase the
mechanistic damage to a fuel assembly or the radiological source
term of any fuel assembly, the amendment would not increase the
radiological consequences of a FHA. With regard to the potential
criticality consequences of a dropped assembly coming to rest
adjacent to a storage rack or on top of a storage rack, the results
are bounded by the current analysis involving a potential missing
neutron poison plate in the storage rack. The fuel configuration
caused by a dropped assembly resting on top of loaded storage racks
is inherently bounded by the assembly misloaded in the storage rack
because the misloaded assembly is in closer proximity to other
assemblies along its entire fuel length.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection
and fuel handling procedures. The consequences of a fuel misloading
event (fuel assembly loaded into
[[Page 35064]]
an unapproved location) are not changed because the reactivity
analysis demonstrates that the same subcriticality criteria and
requirements continue to be met for the worst-case fuel misloading
event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of occurrence of a seismic event, which is
considered an Act of God. Also, the consequences of a seismic event
are not changed because the proposed amendment involves no
significant change to the types of material stored in SFP storage
racks or their mass. In this manner, the forcing functions for
seismic excitation and the resulting forces are not changed. Also,
particular to criticality, the supporting criticality analysis takes
no credit for gaps between high-density rack modules so any
seismically-induced movement between high-density racks that puts
them in closer proximity would not result in an unanalyzed condition
with consequences worse than those analyzed. Also, the small
displacement of the high-density rack closest to the fixed location
of the low-density rack will not put those racks in a closer
proximity than that analyzed. In summary, the proposed amendment
will not increase the probability or consequence of a seismic event.
Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because
the changes in fuel criticality limits and introduction of the
ATRIUM 10XM fuel design have no bearing on the systems, structures,
and components involved in initiating such an event. The proposed
amendment does not change the heat load imposed by spent fuel
assemblies nor does it change the flow paths in the spent fuel pool.
Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for the
proposed amendment.
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 amendment involves no new SFP loading
configurations for current and legacy fuel designs of the nuclear
plant. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel
handling processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate,
or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. Further, the new
fuel type does not introduce any incompatible materials to the spent
fuel pool environment.
As such, the proposed changes introduce no new material
interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that could create
the potential for an accident of a new or different type.
Operation with the proposed amendment will not create a new or
different kind of accident because fuel movement will continue to be
controlled by approved fuel handling procedures. There are no
changes in the criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel
storage safety, including subcriticality requirements, and analyses
demonstrate that the proposed storage arrays meet these requirements
and criteria with adequate margins. Thus, the proposed storage
arrays cannot cause a new or different kind of accident.
[Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.]
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment was evaluated for its effect on current
margins of safety for criticality. Although the amendment involves
changing the subcriticality acceptance limit for the low-density
storage rack from a value of 0.90 to 0.95, the margin of safety for
subcriticality is not significantly reduced in that the limit is
consistent with that of the other storage racks and the regulation
described by 10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4). The new criticality analysis
confirms that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment
continues to meet the required subcriticality margin.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to reduce
the reactor steam dome pressure specified in MNGP Technical
Specifications (TS) 2.0, ``SAFETY LIMITS.'' Specifically, the reactor
steam dome pressure value specified in TS 2.1.1.1 and TS 2.1.1.2 will
be reduced from the current 785 psig to 686 psig. The requested change
supports resolution of a 10 CFR Part 21 condition concerning a
potential to momentarily violate a reactor core safety limit during a
pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient.
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 change to the reactor steam dome pressure in
Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the
use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits
that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The
proposed change is in accordance with an NRC-approved critical power
correlation methodology and, as such, maintains required safety
margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor does it alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and
resultant consequences.
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.
There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures
are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the
change does not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system,
and primary containment) to perform their design functions during
and following postulated accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR Part 21
condition by General Electric determined that there was no decrease
in the safety margin, the Minimum Critical Power Ratio improves
during the transient, and therefore is not a threat to fuel cladding
integrity.
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and
2.1.1.2 is consistent
[[Page 35065]]
with, and within the capabilities of the applicable NRC-approved
critical power correlation, and thus continues to ensure that valid
critical power calculations are performed. No setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
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 NRC'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.
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-261, H.B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of application for amendment: June 8, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated October 12, 2012, October 22, 2012, and April 24, 2013.
Brief Description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to add a 1-hour soak time to Limiting Conditions
for Operation 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 allowing the control rod drive mechanisms
additional time following substantial rod motion to reach thermal
equilibrium.
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 233.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment changed
the license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR
47126). The supplements dated October 12, 2012, October 22, 2012, and
April 24, 2013, 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 May 16, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: March 5, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated May 29, 2012, June 21, 2012, July 6, 2012, July 16,
2012, August 15, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 2,
2013, and March 7, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications to implement a measurement uncertainty
recapture power uprate at the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
(McGuire 1 and 2).
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
for McGuire 1 within 30 days of the completion of the facility's end-
of-cycle 23 refueling outage, currently scheduled for the fall of 2014,
and shall be implemented for McGuire 2 within 30 days of the completion
of the facility's end-of-cycle 22 refueling outage, currently scheduled
for the spring of 2014.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 249.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 15, 2012 (77 FR
28630). The supplements dated May 29, 2012, June 21, 2012, July 6,
2012, July 16, 2012, August 15, 2012, September 27, 2012, November 1,
2012, January 2, 2013, and March 7, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: November 3, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated December 22, 2011, April 4, 2012, May 17,
2012, June 21, 2012, August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012, and April 18,
2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) and Facility
[[Page 35066]]
Operating Licenses (FOLs) to allow the use of neutron absorbing inserts
in the spent fuel pool storage racks for the purpose of criticality
control in the spent fuel pools.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 287 and 290.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR
33247). The letters dated December 22, 2011, April 4, 2012, May 17,
2012, June 21, 2012, August 15, 2012, November 13, 2012, and April 18,
2013, provided clarifying information that did not change the initial
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand
the application beyond the scope of the original Federal Register
notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 21, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 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 3.3.5.1-1,
``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.
Date of issuance: May 16, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 164.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 8, 2013 (78 FR
1270). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-13689 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P