[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6144-6150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2594]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0025]
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 January 12, 2012 to January 25, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3508).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0025 in the subject line
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. 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-
2012-0025. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: (301) 492-3668; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
[[Page 6145]]
Fax comments to: RADB at (301) 492-3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
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 can access publicly available documents related to this
document 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 available online 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 ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to
[email protected].
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-2012-0025.
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 consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
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 20874. The NRC's
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
[[Page 6146]]
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 the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification
(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System 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's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at 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 the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's 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 email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-(866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
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
[[Page 6147]]
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
available online 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209,
(301) 415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
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: July 27, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated September 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment and Drywell
Isolation Instrumentation,'' to revise the allowable value setpoints
for the Main Steam Tunnel Temperature functions. Specifically, the
amendment would modify TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, items; 1.e, ``Main Steam
Tunnel Temperature-High,'' 3.f. ``Main Steam Line Tunnel Ambient
Temperature-High,'' and 4.h, ``Main Steam Line Tunnel Ambient
Temperature-High.'' This setpoint revision is based upon a revision to
the analytical limit calculation. The change will provide additional
margin for elevated temperatures in the Main Steam Tunnel--North during
the summer reliability period. In addition, the amendment would revise
the River Bend Station (RBS) Emergency Plan by modifying the Emergency
Action Levels (EAL) in support of the proposed changes to TS 3.3.6.1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change increases the Technical Specification
allowable value for the main steam tunnel ambient temperature
isolation instrumentation for the main steam line isolation, Reactor
Core Isolation Cooling System isolation and the Reactor Water
Cleanup System isolation. This TS change does not introduce the
possibility of an increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident because the basis for the instrument setpoint is not being
changed as a result of this request. The proposed TS change involves
no physical alteration of the plant. The proposed TS change does not
degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to, any
safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not
significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident. The basis for the main steam tunnel
ambient temperature isolation instrumentation has not changed as a
result of this proposed Allowable value change.
The proposed change to the Emergency Action Level (EAL) does not
increase the probability of an accident. The change only impacts the
initial condition for entry into the Emergency Plan and thus has no
impact on the probability of an event. The proposed change to the
Emergency Action Level (EAL) does not increase the consequences of
an accident. As described in the Technical Analysis the revised
setpoint continues to support the current licensing basis and event
analysis.
Because the process, personnel, and equipment involved in
implementing the Emergency Plan would complete the same functions as
those completed under the existing Emergency Plan, the plan would
continue to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.
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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
As discussed above, the proposed change involves increasing the
TS allowable value for the main steam tunnel ambient temperature
isolation instrumentation for the main steam line isolation, Reactor
Core Isolation Cooling System isolation and the Reactor Water
Cleanup System isolation. The proposed TS change does not introduce
any failure mechanisms of a different type than those previously
evaluated, since there are no physical changes being made to the
facility. No new or different equipment is being installed. No
installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. The
computer program being used has been previously used and reviewed.
As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no
new types of failures or new or different kinds of accidents or
transients that could be created by these changes.
The change affects the implementation of the Emergency Plan by
changing the EALs temperature value for entry into the Emergency
Plan; however, the basis for the temperature value is not changed.
The change to the EAL does not impact any plant equipment or systems
needed to respond to an accident, nor does it change the results of
an analysis of plant accident consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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?
Response: No.
As discussed above, the proposed change involves increasing the
TS allowable value for the for the main steam tunnel ambient
temperature isolation instrumentation, the main steam line
isolation, the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System isolation and
the Reactor Water Cleanup System isolation. The effect of this
change on system availability is not significant, based on the
determination that the basis for the allowable values is not being
revised. The proposed change does not adversely affect the condition
or performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon
for accident mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any
hardware changes. Existing operating margin between plant conditions
and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced due to these
changes. The proposed change does not significantly impact any
safety analysis assumptions or results.
The change to the Emergency Plan does not reduce the margin of
safety currently provided by the plan. As discussed in this
submittal the change does not revise the design criteria of
detecting a 25 gpm [gallon per minute] leak. Also the methods used
to determine the revised analytical limit and setpoint values are
currently' accepted. The proposed change does not impact other
design basis evaluations or consequences. Therefore the changes do
not affect a margin of safety identified in the plant accident
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--
[[Page 6148]]
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: January 23, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.7, ``Standby Liquid Control (SLC)
System.'' Implementation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) Cycle
19 core design results in increased core reactivity, which requires a
corresponding increase in negative reactivity to be provided by the SLC
system. The proposed TS changes reflect the change in the enrichment of
the boron-10 (B-10) isotope in the sodium pentaborate (SPB) solution,
which is the credited neutron absorber. Increasing the enrichment of
the B-10 isotope in the SPB solution effectively increases the
available negative reactivity inserted by the SLC system without having
to increase the system's storage capacity. The proposed change is
needed to ensure appropriate shutdown margin can be maintained during
reload design for future cycles beginning with Cycle 19. In addition,
TS 3.1.7 will be modified from a graphical limiting condition for
operation (LCO) to an LCO based on the product of the SPB solution
concentration (C) and the B-10 enrichment (E) in the SPB solution being
greater than or equal to 420.
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 SLC system is designed to provide the capability of bringing
the reactor, at any time in a fuel cycle, from full power and
minimum control rod inventory to a subcritical condition with the
reactor in the most reactive xenon-free state without taking credit
for control rod movement. The SLC system design satisfies the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.62, Requirements for the Reduction of Risk
from Anticipated Transients without Scram (ATWS) Events for Light-
Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. The proposed changes to the SPB
solution requirements maintain the capability of the SLC system to
perform this reactivity control function and ensure continued
compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62.
The SLC system is not considered to be an initiator of any
event. The use of the proposed SPB solution enriched with the B-10
isotope does not alter the design, function, or operation of the SLC
system or increase the likelihood of a system malfunction that could
increase the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the SLC system do not alter the design,
function, or operation of the SLC system. The proposed change in SPB
concentration, B-10 enrichment, SPB storage volume, and pump
discharge pressure will continue to ensure shutdown of the reactor
in the most reactive xenon-free state without taking credit for
control rod movement. The proposed change in solution temperature
continues to ensure the boron remains in solution and does not
precipitate out of the SLC storage tank or in the SLC piping. The
change in solution temperature also ensures adequate net positive
suction head is available for SLC pump operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?
Response: No.
In the event of injection, the proposed change results in an
increase in the margin between the final B-10 concentration in the
reactor vessel and concentration required for shutdown. Thus, the
proposed change results in additional safety margin being provided.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.7.2 for the plant service water (PSW) and ultimate heat sink
(UHS). Specifically, surveillance requirement (SR) 3.7.2.1 minimum
water level in each PSW pump well of the intake structure would be
revised from the existing value of 60.7 feet (ft) mean sea level (MSL)
to 60.5 ft MSL. This change is based on updated design basis analyses
that demonstrate that at the new minimum level of 60.5 ft MSL
sufficient water inventory remains available from the Altamaha River
for PSW and residual heat removal service water (RHRSW) to handle Loss
of Coolant Accident (LOCA) cooling requirements for 30 days post-
accident with no additional makeup water source available.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulation (10 CFR), Section 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the ultimate heat sink (UHS) is
OPERABLE by ensuring the water level in the PSW pump well of the
intake structure is sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW, and standby
service water pumps to supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30
days. The safety function of the UHS is to mitigate the impact of an
accident. The proposed TS change does not result in or require any
physical changes to HNP systems, structures, and components,
including those intended for the prevention of accidents. The
potential impact of the lower PSW pump well minimum water level on
pump operation requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA,
and potential environmental impact have been evaluated and found to
be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 6149]]
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 TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring
the water level in the PSW pump well of the intake structure is
sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby service water pumps to
supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days. The proposed TS
change does not result in or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level on pump operation
requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring
the water level in the PSW pump well of the intake structure is
sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby service water pumps to
supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days. The proposed TS
change does not result in or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level on pump operation
requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-425, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) 3.7.14 ``Engineered Safety Features
(ESF) Room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller.'' Specifically, the
limiting condition of operation (LCO) allowed completion time for TS
3.7.14 Condition A would be extended from 72 hours to 9 days, on a one-
time only basis. Also proposed is an editorial change to delete a note
added as an emergency change to TS 3.7.14, which had been added in
response to an emergency license amendment request dated August 18,
2010 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System Accession No.
ML102300574).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulation (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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not alter any plant equipment or
operating practices in such a manner that the probability of an
accident is increased. The proposed changes will not alter
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient
event. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of
the plant or significant change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Based on the operability of the remaining ESF Room Cooler and
Safety-Related Chiller Train 2A, the accident analysis assumptions
continue to be met with enactment of the proposed changes. The
system design and operation are not affected by the proposed
changes. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not altered by
the proposed changes. Finally, the proposed compensatory measures
will provide further assurance that no significant reduction in a
safety margin will occur.
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: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308-2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.
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 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 online 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
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209,
[[Page 6150]]
(301) 415-4737 or by email to [email protected].
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: August 16, 2011, supplemented by
letter dated October 6, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.14, ``Containment Leak Rate
Testing Program'' to increase the value of the calculated peak
containment internal pressure from 53 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) to 54.2 psig. This increase is due to an increase in the
calculated mass and energy release during the blowdown phase of the
design basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The increase in the
predicted mass and energy release is due to the correction of an error
in the calculation of the current value of Pa. The
regulations at 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Option B define Pa
as the calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the
design basis LOCA as specified in the TS and specifies the requirements
for containment leakage rate testing.
Date of issuance: January 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 244.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 15, 2011, (76
FR 70773). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information
and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 19, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: March 7, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the
facility's Technical Specifications to add an applicability period of
42.1 effective full-power years to the existing pressure-temperature
limit curves and low temperature overpressure protection system
requirements for PNP.
Date of issuance: January 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 245.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011, (76 FR
28472).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 19, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: February 7, 2011, as
supplemented on December 22, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications, Section 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating,'' and 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Shutdown,'' to increase the minimum
flow rate of the core spray pumps from >=2,800 gallons per minute (gpm)
to >=2,835 gpm.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance, to be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 167.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Appendix A, Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21923).
The licensee's supplemental letter contained clarifying
information, did not change the scope of the original license amendment
request, did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the
scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of January 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-2594 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P