ML11196A022
| ML11196A022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, Point Beach, Byron, Braidwood, North Anna, River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/2011 |
| From: | Giitter J Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Clayton B | |
| References | |
| 76FR44614, NRC20110167 | |
| Download: ML11196A022 (21) | |
Text
44614 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices fixtures, and electronic equipment. For many of these incidental items, U.S.
manufactured alternatives are not
always readily or reasonably available.
The miscellaneous character of these
manufactured goods, together with their
low individual cost, characterize them
as items incidental to the project.
Requiring individual exemptions for
low cost, incidental items would be
time prohibitive and overly burdensome
for the awardee (University of Alaska, Fairbanks), subcontractor (shipyard) and
for NSF. Such a de minimis exemption
allows the award recipients to focus
their efforts on the major manufactured
goods within the ARRV project. The
terms and conditions of the award still
require UAF to Buy American to the
extent practicable for items less than
$10,000. Therefore, a limited project-
specific de minimis exemption for any
such incidental item costing $10,000 or
less used in and incorporated into the
ARRV project is justified in the public
interest. The Department of Energy has
issued a similar type of de minimis
exemption, relating to its Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy [75 FR 35447 (June 22, 2010)].
At this phase in the ARRV project, it is estimated that only $750,000 of
incidental items will require use of the
de minimis exemption. To ensure
proper oversight with regard to use of
this exemption within the project, the
agency hereby establishes an allowable
ceiling of $1.5M for the application of
this de minimis exemption; this
represents approximately 2.5% of the
total value of materials used in the
vessel. (Since the previously-granted
exemptions for the purchase of ARRV
equipment were not granted on this de
minimis basis, but instead because there
was not a domestic manufacturer of the qualifying equipment, those purchases
do not fall within the $1.5M ceiling for
the use of this de minimis exemption.)
Issuance of this limited project-specific exemption recognizes NSF's
commitment to expeditious spending of
Recovery Act dollars balanced against
the need for efficient implementation of
the Recovery Act provision while still
maintaining the Buy American
requirements for manufactured goods
that are greater than the de minimis
amount of $10,000.
III. Exemption On July 6, 2011, and under the authority of section 1605(b)(1) of the Public Law 111-5 and delegation order
dated 27 May 2010, with respect to the
Alaska Region Research Vessel Project
funded by NSF, the NSF Chief Financial
Officer granted a limited project
exemption for any incidental item costing $10,000 or less used in and
incorporated into the project. With this
exemption, the agency hereby
establishes a $1.5M ceiling for the total
allowable value of de minimis
exemptions used on this project.
Dated: July 7, 2011.
Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-18643 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0167]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations Background Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from June 30, 2011 to July 13, 2011. The last biweekly
notice was published on July 12, 2011
(76 FR 40937).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0167 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal rulemaking Web site http://
www.regulations.gov.
Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
- Federal Rulemaking Web site:
Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC-NRC-2011-0167. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
- Mail comments to:
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
- Fax comments to:
RADB at 301-492-3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using
the following methods:
- NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852. *NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through
ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text
and image files of the NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-
415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
- Federal Rulemaking Web site:
Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2011-
0167. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), 50.92, this means
that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) Involve a
significant increase in the probability or VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00045Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44615 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's
Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings in 10 CFR part
- 2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC
regulations are accessible electronically
from the NRC Library on the NRC Web
site at http://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 e-mail at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html.
System VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00046Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44616 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's
Guidance for Electronic Submission,
which is available on the agency's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC's E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC's online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site.
Further information on the Web-based
submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC's E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an e-mail notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an e-
mail notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the Contact Us link located on the NRC Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html, by e-mail at MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) first class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection at the
NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through
ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-
415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No.
50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request:
June 10, 2011. Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to
add a new limiting condition for
operation (LCO) Applicability
requirement, LCO 3.0.9, and its
associated Bases, relating to the
modification of requirements regarding
the impact of unavailable barriers, not
explicitly addressed in TSs, but
required for operability of supported
systems in TSs. This change is
consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-
427, Revision 2, Allowance for Non
Technical Specification Barrier
Degradation on Supported System
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Opportunity to Comment in the Federal Register on June 2, 2006 (71 FR 32145), on possible amendments to revise the
plant-specific TSs, including a model
safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration
determination using the consolidated
line item improvement process. The
NRC staff subsequently issued a Notice
of Availability of this TS improvement
in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model
no significant hazards consideration VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00047Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44617 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices determination in its application dated June 10, 2011.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration is presented
below: Criterion 1-The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an
Accident Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system
technical specification (TS) when the
inoperability is due solely to an
unavailable barrier if risk is assessed
and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low
frequencies of occurrence, and the
overall TS system safety function would
still be available for the majority of
anticipated challenges. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an
accident while relying on the allowance
provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no
different than the consequences of an
accident while relying on the TS
required actions in effect without the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated are not
significantly affected by this change.
The addition of a requirement to assess
and manage the risk introduced by this
change will further minimize possible
concerns. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2-The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or
Different Kind of Accident From any
Previously Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment
will be installed). Allowing delay times
for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an
unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed
and managed, will not introduce new
failure modes or effects and will not, in
the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences
exceed the consequences of accidents
previously evaluated. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the
risk introduced by this change will
further minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3-The Proposed Change Does
Not Involve a Significant Reduction in
the Margin of Safety The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS
when the inoperability is due solely to
an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed
and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low
frequencies of occurrence, and the
overall TS system safety function would
still be available for the majority of
anticipated challenges. The risk impact
of the proposed TS changes was
assessed following the three-tiered
approach recommended in [NRC
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177, An
Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-
Informed Decisionmaking: Technical
Specifications]. A bounding risk
assessment was performed to justify the
proposed TS changes. This application
of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the
licensee's performance of a risk
assessment and the management of
plant risk. The net change to the margin
of safety is insignificant as indicated by
the anticipated low levels of associated
risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional
core damage probability] and ICLERP
[incremental conditional large early
release probability]) as shown in Table
1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis and, based on this review, it
appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the
NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Joseph A.
Aluise, Associate General Council-
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113. NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC (NextEra, the Licensee), Docket Nos.
50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of
Two Creeks, Manitowac County, Wisconsin Date of amendment request:
June 23, 2011. Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment will remove
the Table of Contents from the
Technical Specifications and place it
under licensee control. The Table of
Contents (TOCs) for the Technical
Specifications (TSs) is not being
eliminated. The responsibility for maintenance and issuance of updates to
the TOCs will transfer from the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
to the licensee. The TOCs will no longer
be included in the TSs and, as such, will no longer be part of Appendix A to
the Operating License.
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 amendment is administrative and affects control of a
document, the TOCs, listing the
specifications in the plant TSs. Transferring
control from the NRC to NextEra does not
affect the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant equipment or systems.
The proposed amendment does not impact
the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events, nor does it impact the mitigation of
accidents or transient events.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is administrative and does not alter plant
configuration, require installation of new
equipment, alter assumptions about
previously analyzed accidents, or impact
operation or function of plant equipment or
systems. Therefore, this proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is administrative. The TOCs is not required by
regulation to be in the TSs. Removal does not
impact any safety assumptions or have the
potential to reduce a margin of safety. The
proposed amendment involves a transfer of
control of the TOCs from the NRC to NextEra.
No change in the technical content of the TSs
is involved. Consequently, transfer from the
NRC to NextEra has no impact on the margin
of safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00048Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44618 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra Energy Point
Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North
Anna Power Station, Unit 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia Date of amendment request:
July 19, 2010, as supplemented September 9, 2010, January 26, May 16, and June 23, 2011. Description of amendment request:
Changes are proposed to the Technical
Specifications to include an analytical
methodology for the critical heat flux
correlation.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Approval of the proposed changes will allow Dominion to use the VIPRE [Versatile
Internals and Components Program for
Reactors-EPRI]-DIWRB-2M and VIPRE-
DIW-3 code/correlation pairs to perform
licensing calculations of Westinghouse RFA-
2 fuel in North Anna Cores, using the DDLs
[deterministic design limits] documented in
Appendix C of the DOM-NAF-2-A Fleet
Report and the SDL [statistical design limit]
documented herein. Neither the code/
correlation pair nor the Statistical Departure
from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR)
Evaluation Methodology affect accident
initiators and thus cannot increase the
probability of any accident. Further, since
both the deterministic and statistical DNBR
limits meet the required design basis of
avoiding Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) with 95% probability at a 95%
confidence level, the use of the new code/
correlation and Statistical DNBR Evaluation
Methodology do not increase the potential
consequences of any accident. Finally, the
full core DNB design limit provides increased assurance that the consequences of a
postulated accident which includes
radioactive release would be minimized
because the overall number of rods in DNB
would not exceed the 0.1% level. The
pertinent evaluations to be performed as part
of the cycle specific reload safety analysis to
confirm that the existing safety analyses
remain applicable have been performed and
determined to be acceptable. The use of a
different code/correlation pair will not
increase the probability of an accident
because plant systems will not be operated in
a different manner, and system interfaces
will not change. The use of the VIPRE-DIWRB-2M and VIPRE-DIW-3 code/
correlation pairs to perform licensing
calculations of Westinghouse RFA-2 fuel in
North Anna cores will not result in a
measurable impact on normal operating plant
releases and will not increase the predicted
radiological consequences of accidents
postulated in the UFSAR [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report].
Therefore, neither the probability of occurrence nor the consequences of any accident previously evaluated is significantly
increased.
- 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
The use of VIPRE-D/WRB-2M and the
VIPRE-D/W-3 code/correlation pairs and the
applicable fuel design limits for DNBR does
not impact any of the applicable design
criteria and the licensing basis criteria will
continue to be met. Demonstrated adherence
to these standards and criteria precludes new
challenges to components and systems that
could introduce a new type of accident.
Setpoint safety analysis evaluations have
demonstrated that the use of VIPRE-D/WRB-
2M and VIPRE-D/W3 is acceptable. Design
and performance criteria will continue to be
met and no new single failure mechanisms
will be created. The use of the VIPRE-D/
WRB-2M and VIPRE-D/W-3 code/
correlation pairs and the Statistical DNBR
Evaluation Methodology does not involve
any alteration to plant equipment or
procedures that would introduce any new or
unique operational modes or accident
precursors. Thus, this change does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Approval of the proposed changes will allow Dominion to use the VIPRE-D/WRB-
2M and VIPRE-D/W-3 code/correlation pairs
to perform licensing calculations of
Westinghouse RFA-2 fuel in North Anna
cores, using the DDLs documented in
Appendix C of the DOM-NAF-2-A Fleet
Report and the SDL documented herein. The
SDL has been developed in accordance with
the Statistical DNBR Evaluation
Methodology. North Anna TS 2.1, Safety
Limits, specifies that any DNBR limit
established by any code/correlation must
provide at least 95% non-DNB probability at
a 95% confidence level. The DNBR limits
meet the design basis of avoiding DNB with
95% probability at a 95% confidence level.
The required DNBR margin of safety for
North Anna Power Station, which in this
case is the margin between the 95/95 DNBR
limit and clad failure, is therefore not
reduced. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief:
Gloria Kulesa.
Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request:
August 27, 2010, as supplemented by letters
dated February 11 and May 25, 2011.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the feedwater line break
with loss of offsite power and single
failure (FWLB/LOP/SF) analysis
summarized in the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Updated Safety
Analysis Report. The revision would
change the credited operator action to
20 minutes from 30 minutes to control
the pressurizer level. The revision
would also revise the rate of reactor
coolant pump (RCP) bleed-off to the
reactor drain tank from three gallons per
minute to zero.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
June 28, 2011 (76 FR 37853).
Expiration date of individual notice:
July 28, 2011, for comments and August
29, 2011, for hearings.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00049Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 44619 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 143/Tuesday, July 26, 2011/Notices Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission's related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 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
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737
or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Docket Nos. STN
50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Date of application for amendment:
June 29, 2010, as supplemented on
August 24, 2010, and January 13, 2011.
Brief description of amendment:
The license amendments revise Technical
Specifications (TS) Section 3.4.12, Low
Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System, to correct an
inconsistency between the TS, and
implementation of procedures and
administrative controls for Safety
Injection pumps required to mitigate a
postulated loss of decay heat removal
during mid-loop operation as discussed
in NRC Generic Letter 88-17, Loss of
Date of issuance:
June 29, 2011.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.:
167, 167, 174, 174.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66:
The amendments revise the TSs and license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61526).
The August 24, 2010, and January 13, 2011, supplements contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC
staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
safety evaluation dated June 29, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-18525 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. 030-33305; License No. 25-10994-04; EA-10-258; NRC-2011-0163]
In the Matter of Bozeman Deaconess Foundation, dba Bozeman Deaconess
Hospital, Bozeman, MT; Confirmatory
Order Modifying License; (Effective
Immediately)
I Bozeman Deaconess Hospital (Licensee) is the holder of Materials License No. 25-10994-04 issued by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) pursuant to Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) parts 30 and 35. The license
authorizes the operation of the
Licensee's facility in accordance with
the conditions specified therein, at 915
Highland Boulevard, Bozeman, Montana. This Confirmatory Order is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
mediation session conducted on May
25, 2011, at the NRC Region IV offices
in Arlington, Texas.
II On January 27, 2010, the NRC conducted a routine unannounced inspection of the Bozeman Deaconess
Hospital facility to evaluate radiation
safety and security, as well as
compliance with Commission rules and
regulations and the conditions of the
license. During the inspection, it was
determined that an employee of
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital failed to
secure radioactive materials from
unauthorized access or removal from
the facility's nuclear medicine
laboratory (hot lab). On March 8, 2010, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI),
Region IV, began an investigation (OI
Case No. 4-2010-033) to determine
whether employees from Bozeman
Deaconess Hospital willfully failed to
secure radioactive material during
periods when authorized personnel
were absent from the hot lab. Based on
the results of the inspection and the
evidence developed during the
investigation, the NRC identified two
apparent violations. The first apparent
violation involved a willful failure to
secure licensed materials from
unauthorized removal or access as
required by 10 CFR 20.1801. The second
violation involved a failure to control
and maintain constant surveillance of
licensed material as required by 10 CFR
20.1802. By letter dated April 12, 2011, the NRC transmitted the results of the
inspection and a factual summary of
OI's Investigation Report 4-2010-033 to
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital. In the
April 12 letter, the NRC informed the
Licensee that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action for the
apparent violations. The NRC offered
the Licensee the opportunity to request
a predecisional enforcement conference
or request ADR with the NRC in an
attempt to resolve issues associated with
this matter. In response, on April 21, 2011, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital
requested ADR to resolve this matter
with the NRC.
On May 25, 2011, the NRC and Licensee representatives met in an ADR
session with a professional mediator, arranged through the Cornell University
Institute on Conflict Resolution. ADR is
a process in which a neutral mediator
with no decision-making authority
assists the parties in reaching an
agreement on resolving any differences
regarding the dispute. This VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Jul 25, 2011Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00050Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM26JYN1 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES