[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13369-13376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4958]
[[Page 13369]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0050]
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 27, 2012 to February 22, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 9998).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0050.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0050. 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.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0050 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0050.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. Documents may be viewed in
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0050 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such
information before making the comment submissions available to the
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, 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
[[Page 13370]]
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's
PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are
accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date,
the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by 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 the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the
[[Page 13371]]
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 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 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 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].
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise specific Technical Specification (TS) requirements to support
operation with 24-month fuel cycles, in accordance with the guidance in
Generic Letter (GL) 91-04, ``Changes in Technical Specification
Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle,'' dated
April 2, 1991. In addition, the amendment would incorporate NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF-493, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for
LSSS [Limiting Safety System Settings] Functions,'' to be consistent
with Option A.
Specifically, to accommodate a 24-month fuel cycle, the amendment
would revise certain TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) frequencies that
are specified as ``18 months'' to ``24 months''; the TS Allowable
Values of two instrument functions would be revised; and, consistent
with GL 91-04, testing frequencies would be changed from ``18 months''
to ``24 months'' in TS 5.5.2, ``Systems Integrity Monitoring Program,''
and TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and
pressure measurements would be changed from ``18 months'' to ``24
months'' in TS 5.5.13, ``Control Room Envelope Habitability Program.''
The proposed change to adopt TSTF-493, Revision 4, Option A, would
revise the TSs by adding surveillance Notes with changes to setpoint
values to the instrumentation Functions.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance
testing intervals and certain TS Allowable Values to facilitate a
change in the operating cycle length. The proposed TS changes do not
physically impact the plant. The proposed TS changes do not degrade
the performance of, or increase the challenges to, any safety
systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. The proposed
TS changes do not impact the usefulness of the surveillance and
testing requirements in evaluating the operability of required
systems and components, or the way in which the surveillances are
performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing and TS
Allowable Values are not considered initiators of any analyzed
accident, nor do revisions to the frequency or TS Allowable Values
introduce any accident initiators.
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 changes to surveillance
frequencies do not affect the performance of any equipment credited
to mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident. The
changes to the TS Allowable Values remain bounded by their
associated analytical limits. Evaluation of the proposed TS changes
demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not
significantly affected because of other more frequent testing that
is performed, the availability of redundant systems and equipment,
and the high reliability of the equipment. Historical review of
surveillance test results and associated maintenance records did not
find
[[Page 13372]]
evidence of failures that would invalidate the above conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance
testing intervals and certain changes to TS Allowable Values to
facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The proposed TS
changes do not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type
than those previously evaluated, since there are no physical
configuration or design changes being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed
equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no
new failure modes are being introduced. Although certain instrument
setpoints and TS Allowable Values are being revised, the way
surveillance tests are performed remains unchanged. The TS Allowable
Values remain bounded by their associated analytical limits. A
historical review of surveillance test results and associated
maintenance records indicated there was no evidence of any failures
that would invalidate the above conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident, from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance
testing intervals and certain TS Allowable Values to facilitate a
change in the operating cycle length. The impact of these changes on
system availability is not significant, based on other more frequent
testing that is performed, the existence of redundant systems and
equipment, and overall system reliability. The revised TS Allowable
Values remain bounded by their associated analytical limits.
Evaluations have shown there is no evidence of time dependent
failures that would impact the availability of the systems. The
proposed changes do not significantly impact the condition or
performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for
accident mitigation. The proposed changes do not result in any
hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed
in accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant
conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced
due to these changes. The proposed changes do not significantly
impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
curves in Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to replace the 28
Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) restriction in TS Figures 3.4.9-1,
3.4.9-2, and 3.4.9-3 and the minimum temperature in Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.4.9.5, SR 3.4.9.6, and SR 3.4.9.7. The amendment
would include a set of updated P/T curves for pressure test, core not
critical, and core critical conditions for 32 EFPY based on a fluence
evaluation performed using NRC-approved fluence methodology. The new
curves would show a shift of minimum operating temperature which allows
the bolt-up and minimum temperatures specified for SR 3.4.9.5, SR
3.4.9.6, and SR 3.4.9.7 to be changed from 80 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F) to 70 [deg]F.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The P/T limits are not derived from Design Basis Accident (DBA)
analyses. They are prescribed by American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code Section XI, 10 CFR 50 Appendix G and H, and
associated guidance documents such as Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision
2, as restrictions on normal operation to avoid encountering
pressure, temperature, and temperature rate of change conditions
that might cause undetected flaws to propagate and cause non-ductile
failure of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Thus, they ensure
that an accident precursor is not likely. Hence, they are included
in the TS as satisfying Criterion 2 of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii). The
revision of the numerical value of these limits, i.e., new curves,
using an NRC-approved methodology, does not change the existing
regulatory requirements, upon which the curves are based. Thus, this
revision will not increase the probability of any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the facility is operated or maintained. The proposed changes will
not affect any other System, Structure or Component designed for the
mitigation of previously analyzed events. The proposed changes do
not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. Thus, the proposed revision of
the existing numerical values with the updated figures for the
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) P/T limits, which are based upon an
NRC-approved methodology for calculating the neutron fluence on the
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and new bolt-up limit, will not
increase the consequences of any previously evaluated accident.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the processes governing normal plant
operation. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety
analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice. [Nebraska
Public Power District (NPPD)] is only requesting to revise the
existing numerical values and update the TS figures for the RCS P/T
limits based upon an NRC-approved methodology for calculating the
neutron fluence on the RPV, and to reflect a new bolt-up limit. The
curves continue to be based upon ASME Code.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which Safety
Limits, Limiting Safety System Settings or Limiting Conditions for
Operation are determined. The setpoints at which protective actions
are initiated are not altered by the proposed changes. Sufficient
equipment remains available to actuate upon demand for the purpose
of mitigating an analyzed event. NPPD is only requesting to revise
the existing numerical values and update the TS figures for the RCS
P/T limits based upon an NRC-approved methodology for calculating
the neutron fluence, Radiation Analysis Modeling Application. The
new curves also reflect a new bolt up limit. No changes to the other
Limiting Conditions for Operation or SRs of TS 3.4.9 are proposed.
In 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G specifies fracture toughness
requirements to provide adequate margins of safety during operation
[[Page 13373]]
over the service lifetime. The values of adjusted reference
temperature and upper-shelf energy will remain within the limits of
Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 2 and Appendix G of 10 CFR part 50
for at least 32 EFPY of operation. The safety analysis supporting
this change continues to satisfy the ASME Code, 10 CFR part 50
Appendixes G and H requirements, and associated guidance documents
such as Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 2. Thus, the proposed changes
will not significantly reduce any margin of safety that currently
exists.
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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: February 2, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to modify
certain surveillance requirements (SRs) in the Technical Specifications
to provide an alternative means for testing the dual function, three-
stage, Target Rock main steam safety/relief valves (S/RVs). The SRs
affected are 3.4.3, ``Safety/Relief Valves (S/RVs),'' 3.5.1, ``ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling System]--Operating,'' and 3.6.1.5, ``Low-Low
Set (LLS) Valves.'' These S/RVs provide the overpressure protection
safety function, and also provide the automatic depressurization and
low-low set relief function. This proposed amendment would modify the
subject SRs by providing an alternative methodology using a series of
overlapping tests to demonstrate the required functioning, in lieu of
manually actuating the valves during plant startup.
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 (NSHC) analysis. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's
NSHC analysis and has prepared its own as follows:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Accidents are initiated by malfunctions or failures of plant
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed amendment
only affects the manner in which the subject S/RVs are tested, and
does not involve any design change to the subject S/RVs or other
SSCs. The proposed alternative S/RV testing methodology provides an
equivalent level of assurance that the S/RVs are capable of
performing their intended safety functions. Since there will be no
design change as a result of the proposed amendment, the S/RVs will
continue to perform their design safety function, and there will be
no increase in the consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
In addition, since previously evaluated accidents were not assumed
to be initiated by the method of testing of the S/RVs, the proposed
amendment will cause no increase in the probability of occurrence of
previously evaluated accidents.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect the design function,
operation, or accident performance of the S/RVs, or any plant SSC
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve
installation of any new equipment, and the existing installed
equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. The
changes to the SRs regarding testing methodology will ensure that
the S/RVs remain capable of performing their design safety function.
No setpoints will be changed which would alter the dynamic response
of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are
introduced.
Therefore, the propose amendment 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 amendment will not alter any previously used safety
analysis methods, scenarios, acceptance criteria, or assumptions.
The proposed amendment does not affect the valve setpoint or
operational criteria of the S/RVs.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
its own analysis, concludes that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for the licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General
Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN
55401.
NRC Branch Chief: Shawn A. Williams, Acting.
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 amendment request: January 12, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) 5.5.7 ``Reactor Coolant Pump [RCP]
Flywheel Inspection Program.'' Specifically, the inspection interval
would be changed from ``at least once per 10 years'' to ``at least once
per 20 years.'' This change is consistent with Industry/Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change
Traveler, TSTF-421-A, ``Revision to RCP Flywheel Inspection Program
(WCAP-15666).'' The availability of this TS improvement was published
in the Federal Register (FR) on October 22, 2003 (68 FR 60422), as part
of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.
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 (NSHC). The licensee has stated that the model NSHC as
published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2003 (68 FR 37590),
applies to the current request. The model NSHC is reproduced below:
Criterion 1
The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change to the RCP flywheel examination frequency
does not change the response of the plant to any accidents. The RCP
will remain highly reliable and the proposed change will not result
in a significant increase in the risk of plant operation. Given the
extremely low failure probabilities for the RCP motor flywheel
during normal and accident conditions, the extremely low probability
of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with loss of offsite power
(LOOP), and assuming a conditional core damage probability (CCDP) of
1.0 (complete failure of safety systems), the core damage frequency
(CDF) and change in risk would still not exceed the NRC's acceptance
guidelines contained in RG 1.174 (<1.0E-6 per year). Moreover,
considering the uncertainties involved in this evaluation, the risk
associated with the postulated failure of an RCP motor flywheel is
significantly low. Even if all four RCP motor flywheels are
considered in the bounding plant configuration case, the risk is
still acceptably low.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the
facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated
[[Page 13374]]
and maintained; alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems,
components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits; or affect the source term, containment isolation,
or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the
radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed change does not increase the type or amount of
radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly
increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation
exposure. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or
Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change in flywheel inspection frequency does not
involve any change in the design or operation of the RCP. Nor does
the change to examination frequency affect any existing accident
scenarios, or create any new or different accident scenarios.
Further, the change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or alter the methods governing normal plant operation. In
addition, the change does not impose any new or different
requirements or eliminate any existing requirements, and does not
alter any assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and
current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in
a Margin of Safety.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the
acceptance criteria contained in RG 1.174. There are no significant
mechanisms for inservice degradation of the RCP flywheel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not
involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's assessment that the model
NSHC applies 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.
A 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
available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR's
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: July 22, 2011, as supplemented
October 19, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment modifies the
Technical Specifications (TS) by relocating specific Surveillance
Frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the adoption of
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-Risk Informed Technical
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b.''
The existing Bases information describing the basis for the
Surveillance Frequency will be relocated to the licensee-controlled
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Additionally, the change adds a
new program TS 5.5.15, ``Surveillance Frequency Control Program,'' to
TS Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals.''
The changes are consistent with NRC approved Industry/TSTF STS
change TSTF-425, Revision 3, (Rev. 3) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090850642). The Federal Register notice published on July 6, 2009 (74
FR 31996) announced the availability of this TS improvement.
Date of issuance: February 14, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 301.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 15, 2011 (76
FR 70772).
The supplemental letter dated October 19, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 13375]]
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 10, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated July 27, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to add a new limiting condition for operation
(LCO) Applicability requirement, LCO 3.0.9, and its associated Bases,
relating to the modification of requirements regarding the impact of
unavailable barriers, not explicitly addressed in the TSs, but required
for operability of supported systems in the TSs. This change is
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-427,
Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier
Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY,'' using the consolidated
line item improvement process.
Date of issuance: February 8, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 173.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 26, 2011 (76 FR
44616). The supplemental letter dated July 27, 2011, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 8, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 1, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: October 12, 2011, as
supplemented on January 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The changes revise the Technical
Specification (TS) relating to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power
Ratios (SLMCPRs). The changes result from a cycle-specific analysis
performed to support the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Unit
1, in the upcoming Cycle 15. Specifically, the TS changes will revise
the SLMCPRs contained in TS 2.1 for two recirculation loop operation
and single-recirculation loop operation to reflect the changes in the
cycle-specific analysis. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using Nuclear
Regulatory Commission-approved methodology described in NEDE 24011-P-A,
General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, Revision 18.
Date of issuance: February 17, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 206.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-39. The amendment revised the
license and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2011 (76 FR
76196).
The supplement dated January 13, 2012, clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 17, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 26, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised several
Technical Specification (TS) pages to correct formatting errors and
typographical errors, including pages within TS 3.1.3, ``Control Rod
OPERABILITY,'' TS 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' TS 3.3.1.1,
``Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.5.1,
``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.1,
``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.6.2,
``Secondary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.1, ``Loss
of Power (LOP) Instrumentation,'' TS 3.3.8.2, ``Reactor Protection
System (RPS) Electric Power Monitoring,'' TS 3.5.1, ``ECCS--
Operating,'' TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Shutdown,'' TS 3.6.1.1, ``Primary
Containment,'' TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' TS
3.7.4, ``Control Room Emergency Filter (CREF) System,'' TS 3.8.1, ``AC
[Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' TS 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel
Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' TS 5.2, ``Organization,'' and TS
5.5, ``Programs and Manuals''. In addition, the amendment revised TS
5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' to remove an expired one-time
exception of the 5-year frequency requirement for setpoint testing of
safety valve MSRV-70ARV.
Date of issuance: February 16, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 241.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR
67489).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: May 2, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: This license amendment revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.4.6.1, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System]
Leakage Detection Systems,'' to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to operable status,
establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when monitors are
inoperable, and to reflect the requested changes and more accurately
reflect the contents of the facility design bases related to the
operability of the RCS leakage detection instrumentation.
Date of issuance: February 22, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment No.: 186.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 12, 2011 (76 FR
40941).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 13376]]
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: August 23, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the facility
operating license to delete Section 2.G.1 of the Facility Operating
License, which requires reporting of violations of the requirements in
Section 2, items C(1), C(3) though (33), E, F, K, and L of the Facility
Operating License. The proposed amendment would also delete Section 6.6
of the Technical Specifications (TSs) regarding reportable events.
Section 6.6 of the TSs are redundant to requirements that have since
been embodied in the regulations and, accordingly, may be deleted from
the TS.
Date of issuance: February 22, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance.
Amendment No.: 185.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 15, 2011 (76
FR 70774).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-4958 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P