[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43953-43960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17102]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. 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 staff) 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 July 3, 2008 to July 16, 2008. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 15, 2008 (73 FR 40629).
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 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. 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.
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-
[[Page 43954]]
0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room
6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written
comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public Document
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of
requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is
discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice,
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request
via electronic submission through the NRC E-Filing system for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene. 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 Commission's PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible 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/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request
for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60
days, 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 set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
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
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/
requestor 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 is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor 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 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, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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.
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 in 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 ViewerTM
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms ViewerTM 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 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
[[Page 43955]]
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 submission.
For further details with respect to this amendment action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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 e-mail to [email protected].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the reactor coolant system (RCS) specific activity to utilize a
new indicator, Dose Equivalent Xenon-133 and only take into account the
noble gas activity in the primary coolant, instead of the current
indicator, average disintegration energy (E Bar). Specifically, the
current Technical Specification 3.4.8, ``Specific Activity,'' limit on
RCS gross specific activity would be replaced with a new limit on RCS
noble gas specific activity. This change was proposed by the industry's
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated TSTF-490,
``Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision to RCS Specific Activity
Tech. Spec. [Technical Specification].'' The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in
the Federal Register on November 20, 2006 (71 FR 67170), on possible
amendments concerning TSTF-490, including a model safety evaluation and
model no significant hazards (NSHC) determination, using the
consolidated line item improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently
issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on March 15,
2007 (72 FR 12217). Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., affirmed the
applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application
dated March 25, 2008.
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 staff annotations:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated.
Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary
coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for
any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on
primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does
not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The
proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to
concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed
change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of
any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident
during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences
of an accident during the Completion Time. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter
any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant
operating parameter [besides the allowable specific activity in the
RCS.] [The change which impacts the allowable specific activity in
the RCS is consistent with the accident analyses.] [Therefore] [t]he
change does not create the potential for a new or different kind of
accident from any previously calculated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in [a] Margin of Safety.
The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas
radioactivity in the primary coolant. [The proposed change will have
no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis
accident because it will limit the RCS noble gas specific activity
to be consistent with the accident analysis.] The proposed change is
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses [and will
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the
safety analyses.] [Therefore the change does no involve a reduction
in a margin of safety.]
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change
[[Page 43956]]
does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, with
consideration of the NRC staff annotations, 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, Esquire, Senior Nuclear
Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Building 475, 5th Floor,
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
remove notes associated with License Amendment No. 221 regarding the
inoperability of the Unit 4 Rod Position Indication (RPI) system for
control rod F-8 in Shutdown Bank B and Amendment No. 230 from
associated notes regarding the inoperability of the Unit 3 RPI system
for control rod M-6 in Control Bank C.
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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this
proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed amendments do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated because the proposed amendments are purely
administrative in nature. The proposed amendments do not make
substantive changes to the Technical Specifications and do not
affect any assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the
physical design and/or operation of the plant; and they do not
affect the Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis
assumption.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the probability or
consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
2. Does the proposed change create the probability of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed administrative changes to the Technical
Specifications do not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated, since the proposed
amendments will not change the physical plant or the modes of plant
operation defined in the facility operating licenses. No new failure
mode is introduced due to the proposed administrative changes, since
the proposed changes do not involve the addition or modification of
equipment, nor do they alter the design or operation of affected
plant systems, structures, or components.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendments would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
No. The operating limits and functional capabilities of the
affected systems, structures, and components are unchanged by the
proposed amendment. The changed Technical Specifications remove
notes which are no longer in effect and do not reduce any of the
margins of safety.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendments would not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above 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: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas H. Boyce.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment requests: April 3, 2008.
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater
System,'' to remove Surveillance Requirement 3.7.5.6, and revise TS
3.7.6, ``Condensate Storage Tank (CST) and Fire Water Storage Tank
(FWST),'' to remove the FWST level requirements, revise the CST level
requirements, and revise TS 3.7.6 to be consistent with the NUREG-1431
Standard Technical Specifications.
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 changes would revise TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary
Feedwater System,'' to remove SR 3.7.5.6, and revise TS 3.7.6,
``Condensate Storage Tank (CST) and Fire Water Storage Tank
(FWST),'' to remove the FWST level requirements, revise the CST
level requirements, and revise TS 3.7.6 to be consistent with the
NUREG-1431 Standard Technical Specifications. The proposed changes
reflect a design change to the CST that enables the CST to provide
the entire required source of usable volume of safety grade water to
the AFW System pumps to remove decay and sensible heat from the
Reactor Coolant System (RCS).
The CST and AFW System pumps are not accident initiators, and
are credited to mitigate accidents and events. The changes have no
impact on the method by which the CST or AFW system performs its
functions or the required AFW system pump flowrate to be provided.
With the changes, a sufficient quantity of water will continue to be
supplied by the CST to the AFW pumps to remove heat from the RCS in
the event of a loss of normal feedwater to the SGs, and thus the
FWST volume is no longer required to be contained in the TS.
With the change, the overall quantity of water required by TS
3.7.6 to be available for the AFW pumps is reduced. This reduction
in available AFW supply is acceptable based on revised plant-
specific CST minimum storage volume calculations, which incorporate
the design of the replacement Westinghouse Model Delta 54 Steam
Generators, and the design change in Unit 2 to a Tcold
upper head design.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The CST and AFW pumps are not accident initiators, and are
credited to mitigate accidents and events. The changes have no
impact on the method by which the CST or AFW system performs its
functions or the required AFW system pump flowrate to be provided.
The increase in the available CST volume enables the CST for
each unit to provide the required volume for the limiting natural
circulation cooldown event without reliance on the FWST. The FWST
will no longer need to be manually transferred to the AFW System
pump suction when CST inventory is depleted following a natural
circulation cooldown event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The accident analyses credit CST inventory to meet RCS design
pressure, containment design pressure, 10 CFR 100 dose limits, and
10 CFR 50.36 peak cladding temperature limits. The increase in the
TS 3.7.6 available CST volume enables the CST for each unit to
[[Page 43957]]
provide the required volume for the limiting natural circulation
cooldown event without reliance on the FWST. The CST volume for the
natural circulation cooldown event is greater than that required to
mitigate accidents. Thus the CST will provide the entire required
source of usable volume of safety grade water to the AFW System
pumps to remove decay and sensible heat from the RCS.
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Balwant K. Singal.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: April 25, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove the current
restriction on operation of the hydrogen water chemistry (HWC) system
at low power levels. Currently, the TSs state that the HWC system shall
not be placed in service until reactor power reaches 20% of rated
thermal power. The original restriction on HWC operation was intended
to prevent increases in main steamline (MSL) radiation background
levels before the MSL radiation monitors (MSLRM) setpoints were
adjusted because it was assumed that the MSL radiation would increase
significantly with HWC operation. The licensee's application stated
that the present HWC injection rate does not cause an appreciable
increase in MSL radiation, therefore, the reason for prohibiting HWC
operation below 20% of rated thermal power no longer exists.
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.
Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) proposes to amend Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.2 to remove a limitation on operation of
the Hydrogen Water Chemistry (HWC) System below 20% of rated thermal
power. The original HWC system injected hydrogen into the condensate
system at levels that caused significant increases in the main
steamline radiation background. As a consequence, it was necessary
to also increase the Main Steamline Radiation Monitor (MSLRM)
setpoints to prevent undesirable MSLRM alarms and reactor water
sample line isolations. However, the MSLRM is credited with
mitigating the consequences of a Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA)
that is of concern only below 10% power. An increase in setpoint
would reduce the sensitivity of the MSLRM to fuel failures resulting
from a CRDA. Therefore, increasing the MSLRM setpoints is permitted
only above 20% of rated thermal power where a control rod drop was
analyzed not to create fuel failures. As a result of a revised
system application, the HWC injection rate is now much lower than
that applied originally, and main steamline radiation does not
increase significantly when HWC is placed in service. Consequently
there is no impact on the MSLRM setpoints at low power (below 20%).
HWC injection itself is not associated with any accident or
operational occurrence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). The purpose of HWC is to reduce Intergranular Stress
Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) in the reactor coolant system. IGSCC can
lead to a loss of coolant accident. Lowering the power level at
which HWC injection is initiated will increase the time that
hydrogen is injected and improve IGSCC prevention. Low power
operation is recommended, by EPRI [Electric Power Research
Institute], to increase the time that HWC is in service. EPRI has
evaluated HWC operation on plant safety systems and concluded that
there are no adverse effects associated with HWC injection at low
power. The implementation of low power HWC operation will follow the
guidelines in BWRVIP-156 [Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals
Project 156 (BWRVIP-156), ``Generic Guidelines for Improvement in
HWC System Availability,'' EPRI Report No. 1011706] to ensure
reliable operation of the HWC system.
The [CRDA] is the only accident applicable to the MSLRM
isolation actuation function. This accident can result in fuel
failures if it occurs below 10% of rated thermal power but is not of
concern above 10% power. The MSLRM trips the two Mechanical Vacuum
Pumps (MVP) and isolates reactor water sample lines on high main
steamline radiation. The MSLRM is credited with fuel failure
detection and MVP trips in the CRDA Analysis. The MVPs are secured
prior to reaching 5% of rated thermal power. The proposed change
does not alter the present TS requirement prohibiting MSLRM setpoint
increases below 20% of rated thermal power and thereby does not
change the plant response assumed in the CRDA Analysis.
In conclusion, the proposed change will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated[?]
Response: No.
The HWC injects hydrogen into the secondary condensate pump
suction lines and injects oxygen into the Offgas system. The
existing TS prohibits HWC operation at power levels below 20% of
rated thermal power. The proposed change would permit HWC at any
power level. Operating procedures would begin the HWC injection at
approximately 5% power when sufficient condensate flow is available
to transport the hydrogen in the reactor coolant system. Injection
of hydrogen into the reactor coolant system has proven to be
beneficial to the reactor vessel and recirculation system piping
components. The implementation of low power HWC operation will
follow the guidelines in BWRVIP-156 [ ] to ensure reliable operation
of the HWC system. The TS requirements for the MSLRM Isolation
Actuation functions will remain unchanged. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The safety margin applicable to this change is the MSLRM
setpoint to main steamline radiation assumed in the CRDA Analysis.
The MSLRM trip of the MVPs is credited in the CRDA Analysis. The
MSLRM setpoint requirements are not changed by this proposed license
amendment; both the existing and proposed footnotes associated with
the MSLRM Isolation Actuation TS permit increasing the MSLRM
setpoints only if the plant is operated above 20% of thermal power.
This is outside the power range at which the CRDA is of concern.
There is no other safety margin associated with operation of HWC.
Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, with changes in the areas noted above, 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business
Unit--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Harold K. Chernoff.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: June 9, 2008.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
action statements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.12 for insertion
[[Page 43958]]
limit and shutdown margin requirements, revise the applicability for
the operability of the rod position indication and bank demand position
indication systems, revise/add action statements for rod position
indication, and add action statements for group step demand counters.
These revisions enhance completeness of the Surry TS and are consistent
with NUREG-1431, Revision 3.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants.''
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.
The proposed change is being made to enhance the completeness of
the Surry TS and to achieve consistency with NUREG-1431 with respect
to requirements and action statements for insertion limits, SDM, rod
position indication, and group step demand counters. The proposed
change does not add or modify any plant systems, structures or
components (SSCs). Thus, the proposed change does not affect
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events. Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
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).
Although the proposed change revises the applicability of the
operability requirements for the Rod Position Indication and Bank
Demand Position Indication Systems, it does not involve a change in
methods governing plant startup, operation, or shutdown. The
proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. 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.
The proposed change does not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the analyses or design basis, nor does it
alter the condition or performance of equipment or systems used in
accident mitigation or assumed in any accident analysis. 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 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, Esq., Senior Counsel,
Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond,
VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Melanie C. Wong.
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.
FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: February 19, 2008.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
revises the technical specification Actions for the Emergency Diesel
Generators (EDG) to remove the conditional surveillance requirement to
test the alternate EDG whenever one EDG is taken out of service for
pre-planned preventive maintenance and testing.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: June
13, 2008 (73 FR 33853).
Expiration date of individual notice: August 12, 2008.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 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 e-mail to [email protected].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station,
Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: January 26, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated June 6, October 11, 2007, and April 10,
2008.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed changes would revise
TS 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (PRS) Instrumentation,'' Table
3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,'' Function 8,
``Scram Discharge Volume [SDV] Water Level--High,'' item b, ``Float
Switch,'' by
[[Page 43959]]
replacing SR 3.3.1.1.9 with SR 3.3.1.1.12. This change will effectively
revise the surveillance frequency for the SDV level float switch from
every 92 days to every 24 months.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 179.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2007 (72 FR
28719).
The June 6, October 11, 2007, and April 10, 2008 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: July 2, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would delete
operating license (OL) condition 2.C (5), ``Fuel Burnup,'' which
restricts maximum rod average burnup to 60 giga-watt days per metric
ton uranium (GWD/MTU). Deletion of the OL condition will provide the
opportunity to increase maximum rod average burnup to as high as 62
GWD/MTU and allow fuel management flexibility.
Date of issuance: July 2, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 198.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49571).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 2, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related to control room envelope
habitability in accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-448-
A, ``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2008.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 150 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 207.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2007 (72 FR
49573).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: March 13, 2008.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.5.8 to require verification that the reactor
building spray nozzles are unobstructed following maintenance that
could result in nozzle blockage, in lieu of the current SR of
performing the test every 10 years.
Date of issuance: July 9, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 233.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications/license.Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 6, 2008 (73 FR 25038).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: January 9, 2008, as
supplemented on February 6, 2008, March 5, 2008 and May 22, 2008.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System Instrumentation,'' Function 7.b, and TS 3.5.4,
``Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),'' Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.5.4.2. The proposed change to TS 3.3.2 lowered the nominal trip
setpoint and corresponding allowable value of the refueling water
storage tank (RWST) Level-Low Low at which the semi-automatic
switchover from the RWST to the containment emergency sump occurs.
Date of issuance: July 7, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--151; Unit 2--132.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 29, 2008 (73 FR
5230).
The supplements dated February 6, 2008, March 5, 2008 and May 22,
2008, 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 July 7, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: July 13, 2007, as supplemented
on August 20, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) requirements related to main control
room and emergency switchgear room envelope habitability. These changes
are consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved
Revision 3 of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specifications (STS) Change Traveler TSTF-448, ``Control Room
Habitability.''
Date of issuance: July 7, 2008.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 260, 260.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments changed the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45463).
The supplement dated August 20, 2007, provided additional
information
[[Page 43960]]
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 July 7, 2008.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of July 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-17102 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P