[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61406-61408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21425]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281]
Virginia Electric and Power Company; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-32 and DPR-37, issued to the Virginia Electric and Power Company
(Dominion, the licensee), for operation of the Surry Power Station,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Surry County, Virginia.
The proposed amendment would allow use of an alternate methodology
from that previously approved in Topical Report DOM-NAF-3-0.0-P-A,
GOTHIC Methodology for Analyzing the Response to Postulated Pipe
Ruptures Inside Containment, as discussed in the Surry Power Station,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The
approved methodology was used to establish boundary conditions (i.e.,
pressure, liquid temperature and water level) for the Surry
recirculation spray (RS) strainers being installed in the Surry Units 1
and 2 containment buildings. The boundary conditions are required to
assess the RS strainer internal hydraulic performance following a loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA). The NRC-approved methodology contains
significant conservatisms, which are included in the GOTHIC net
positive suction head (NPSH) available models to maximize liquid
temperatures and minimize containment pressure for design-basis
containment response evaluations. However, these conservatisms are
creating bulk conditions that are too conservative for application to
the sump strainer performance. Specifically, for certain LOCA analyses,
the overly conservative conditions result in a prediction of two-phase
flow in the RS strainer for a short period of time. Therefore, an
alternate containment GOTHIC analysis methodology is proposed to reduce
certain overly conservative assumptions to more realistically, yet
conservatively, address expected plant conditions in containment
following a LOCA. The alternate method relaxes some of the
conservatisms in the NPSH analysis methodology in Topical Report DOM-
NAF-3.0-0-P-A. The proposed alternate methodology will be used to
demonstrate that the RS pumps have adequate NPSH available throughout
their required service time.
The licensee had performed calculations following an NRC audit at
the licensee's North Anna Power Station during the week of July 16,
2007, where an NRC auditor requested documentation of the subcooling
margin inside of the containment sump strainers. During review of the
calculations, it was identified that dynamic head change in the
strainer had not been included in the calculation. Following a new
calculation by the strainer vendor, which showed that flashing would
not occur at North Anna, a new Surry calculation was performed which
showed that flashing would occur under certain conditions that would
result in the RS pumps having inadequate NPSH when four RS pumps were
in operation at the same time. The approved GOTHIC containment analysis
methodology for deriving NPSH was reviewed to determine whether the
predicted flashing was reasonable. After several weeks of reviewing the
GOTHIC model and its associated conservative inputs and assumptions, it
was concluded that an alternate GOTHIC methodology was required to
demonstrate that flashing would not occur. The proposed alternate
methodology allows for a larger liquid-vapor interface area that
accounts for additional heat transfer between the containment vapor and
the liquid phase which is not credited in the existing methodology. The
10 CFR 50.59 review completed for the design change package for
installation of the Unit 1 sump strainer during the current refueling
outage indicated that NRC approval would be required before the
strainer was declared operable and before the Surry Unit 1 startup
could commence following the refueling. The corresponding operability
of the partially installed Surry Unit 2 strainer was addressed in
accordance with the licensee's operability determination process. These
determinations were completed and discussed with NRC staff on October
16, 2007. Consequently, the specific need for the Surry specific GOTHIC
containment analysis
[[Page 61407]]
methodology was only recently recognized as requiring NRC approval.
Based on the preceding discussion, the Commission concludes that
exigent circumstances exist.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances,
the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations
in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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 not 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 and does not implement any physical changes
to the facility or changes in plant operation. The proposed change
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits, rather it confirms that required SSCs [e.g., the containment
sump strainers and the Recirculation Spray (RS) pumps] will perform
their function as required. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) safety analysis acceptance criteria continue to be met for
the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact plant equipment design or
function during accident conditions. The hydraulic performance of
the GSI-191 strainers is analytically confirmed to be acceptable by
using the alternate methodology proposed by this change. No changes
in the methods governing normal plant operation are being
implemented. The proposed change assures that there is adequate
margin available to meet safety analysis criteria and does not
introduce new failure modes, accident initiators, or equipment
malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident.
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 the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined, and the dose analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected. The proposed change does not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside of the analyses or design basis
and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition. The proposed alternate GOTHIC methodology recovers a
small amount of conservatism; however, the analyses to determine the
sump strainer boundary conditions retain a sufficient level of
conservatism and demonstrate that safety related components will
continue to be able to perform their design functions. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
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.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 14 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 the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to
take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below. A request for hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing
rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The
E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2)
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative)
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html.
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. Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a
digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE
viewer, it 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
[[Page 61408]]
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 filer
submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing
must be submitted to the EIE 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 EIE 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 may seek assistance through the
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line,
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or
locally, (301) 415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good
cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion,
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.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp unless excluded pursuant to
an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a
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. 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 submissions.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide 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 petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this exigent license
application, see the application for amendment dated October 22, 2007,
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.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 by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by
e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October 2007.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R. A. Jervey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-21425 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P