[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22808-22823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9169]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0090]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined 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 the 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 or
combined license, as applicable, 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 March 22, 2012 to April 4, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 3, 2012 (77 FR 20070).
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-2012-0090.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0090. 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-2012-0090 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-2012-0090.
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-2012-0090 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 and Combined 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; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s)
[[Page 22809]]
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 or combined
license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ''Rules of Practice
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. 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 information (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 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
[[Page 22810]]
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 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
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, (HBRSEP), Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises the
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements (SRs) for
addressing a missed surveillance. The change is consistent with the
NRC-approved Revision 6 of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specifications (STSs) Change Traveler TSTF-358,
``Missed Surveillance Requirements.''
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. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change to incorporate the requirements of improved
STS SR 3.0.3 into corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, respectively,
does not affect the design or operation of the plant. The proposed
change involves revising the existing HBRSEP custom TS to be
consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, to facilitate the
incorporation of TSTF-358 into the TS. The proposed change involves
no technical changes to the existing TS as it merely clarifies how
SRs are met. As such, these changes are administrative in nature and
do not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change to incorporate the requirements of improved
STS SR 3.0.3 into corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, respectively,
does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change revises the
existing HBRSEP TS to be consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, to
clarify how SRs are met and facilitates the incorporation of TSTF-
358 for addressing missed surveillances. As such, the proposed
change will not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed change to incorporate the requirements of improved
STS SR 3.0.3 into corresponding HBRSEP TS SR 3.0.3, respectively,
does not affect plant operation or safety analysis assumptions in
any way. The change provides additional clarification on how a
surveillance is met and facilitates the incorporation of TSTF-358
for addressing missed surveillances. The change is administrative in
nature and does not affect the operation of safety-related systems,
structures, or components.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 22811]]
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: David T. Conley, Manager--Senior Counsel--
Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box
1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 16, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would make
corrections in the Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1-1 Note 1
for Overtemperature Delta Temperature (OT[Delta]T). The corrections are
consistent with NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specification
Westinghouse Plants'', Revision 3. The proposed change to TS Table
3.3.1-1 Note 1 corrects the inequality symbol associated with the
nominal Reactor Coolant System operating pressure (P'). The P' provided
in TS Table 3.3.1-1 Note 1 was incorrectly specified as less than or
equal to (<=) 2235 pounds per square inch gage (psig) and is being
corrected to greater than or equal to (>=) 2235 psig. In addition, the
f([Delta]I) penalty factor for axial power distribution values less
than -17 percent Rated Thermal Power (RTP) or less than 12 percent RTP
is currently specified as ``2.4'' and is being clarified to 2.4%.
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 is a correction to the equation for
OT[Delta]T setpoint and the inputs for f([Delta]I) shown in Table
3.3.1-1 Note 1. The OT[Delta]T equation and variables values serve
as a model for trip setpoint calculation. The errors in Table 3.3.1-
1 being addressed by this proposed change were contained in and
introduced during the implementation of NUREG-1431, Improved
Standard Technical Specifications, Revision 1. The proposed changes
are consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, which has corrected
these errors. The OT[Delta]T parameter limits continue to be
determined using the NRC methodologies and OT[Delta]T will continue
to be within the limit assumed in the accident analysis. As a
result, neither the probability nor the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated will be affected.
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.
No new or different accidents result from the proposed changes.
The 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 methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the
changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate
any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are 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.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This change will have no effect on the margin of safety. This
proposed change is a correction to the OT[Delta]T setpoint
calculation and the inputs for f([Delta]I).
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: David T. Conley, Manager--Senior Counsel--Legal
Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1551,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
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: December 8, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would: (1)
extend the frequency of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.8.1.3
(calibration of loss of power instrumentation) from 18 to 24 months,
and (2) revise the Allowable Values of certain functions in Table
3.3.8.1-1 of Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.8.1, ``Loss of Power
(LOP) Instrumentation.'' The SR extension will make the administration
and performance of that SR consistent with the River Bend Station's 24-
month operating cycles, as approved by the NRC in Amendment No. 168
dated August 31, 2010. The changes to the Allowable Values are
necessary to address the discovery of a non-conservative value in the
affected TS 3.3.8.1.
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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
SR extension:
The proposed TS change revises a surveillance testing interval
to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. 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. The proposed TS change does not adversely affect
the usefulness of the SR in evaluating the operability of required
system and components, or the way in which the surveillance is
performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing is not
considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a
revision to the frequency 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 change does not affect the
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident. Evaluation of the proposed TS change
has 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 evidence of failures that would invalidate the above
conclusions.
AV changes:
The change in the degraded voltage protection voltage and time
delay allowable values allows the protection scheme to function as
originally designed. (This change will involve alteration of nominal
trip setpoints in the field, also to be reflected in revisions to
the calibration procedures.) The proposed allowable values ensure
that the Class 1 E distribution system remains connected to the
offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is available and
motor starting transients are considered.
[[Page 22812]]
Calculations have demonstrated that adequate margin is present to
support the decrease in the minimum allowable Division 3 degraded
voltage. The proposed time delay continues to provide equipment
protection while preventing a premature separation from offsite
power. The diesel start due to a Loss of Coolant Accident signal is
not adversely affected by this change. During an actual degraded
voltage condition, the degraded voltage time delays will continue to
isolate the Class 1 E distribution system from offsite power before
the diesel is ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the
limiting time basis for mitigating system responses to the accident.
For this reason, the existing loss of power/loss of coolant accident
analysis continues to be valid.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
SR extension:
The proposed TS change revises a surveillance testing interval
to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. 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. As a result, no new failure modes are being
introduced. The way surveillance tests are performed remains
unchanged. 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.
AV changes:
The proposed change involves the revision of degraded voltage
protection voltage and time delay allowable values to satisfy
existing design requirements.
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.
SR extension:
The proposed TS change revises a surveillance testing interval
to facilitate a change in the operating cycle length. The effect of
this change 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.
Evaluation has shown there is no evidence of time dependent failures
that would affect the availability of the systems. 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 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 change does not significantly
affect any safety analysis assumptions or results.
AV changes:
The proposed protection voltage allowable values are low enough
to prevent inadvertent power supply transfer, but high enough to
ensure that sufficient voltage is available to the required
equipment. The proposed time delay continues to provide equipment
protection while preventing a premature separation from offsite
power. The diesel start due to a Loss of Coolant Accident signal is
not adversely affected by this change. During an actual degraded
voltage condition, the degraded voltage time delays will continue to
isolate the Class 1 E distribution system from off site power before
the diesel is ready to assume the emergency loads. 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--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: February 1, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification 3.3.B.3 allowances for bypassing the
Rod Worth Minimizer (RWM) consistent with the allowances recommended in
the Standard Technical Specifications.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident. The RWM is credited to
minimize the probability and consequences of a control rod drop
accident however this amendment proposes to substitute additional
administrative requirements that ensure the analysis remains
conservative and bounding. The additional requirements are
considered adequate so as not to have a significant impact on the
probability or consequences of an accident. Individuals performing
the additional verification of selected control rods are qualified
and use additional process controls to ensure they perform the
necessary verifications. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve any new modes of
operation. The change established additional administrative controls
for when the RWM system is inoperable. The administrative controls
involve performing an independent verification that the correct
control rod is selected. The proposed amendment does not change how
the control rods are moved or change the design configuration of the
control rods. No new accident precursors are introduced. No new or
different types of equipment will be installed. The methods
governing plant operation remain bounded by current safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment establishes additional administrative
requirements for when the RWM is inoperable. The additional
administrative controls provide reasonable assurance that station
safety analysis results are unchanged and existing safety margins
are preserved. The amendment ensures that control rod selection
remains within established withdrawal sequences and minimizes the
probability that a human error will result is an out of sequence rod
being moved. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a
significant reduction in the 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. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
[[Page 22813]]
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (VY), LLC and Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: March 12, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
request to approve revision of License Renewal Commitment (LRC) No. 3
and No. 6 as described in Appendix A of Supplement 2 to NUREG-1907.
Specifically, LRC No. 3 would be revised to clarify that cleaning and
inspecting of the fire pump diesel storage tank is not required in
order to perform ultrasonic thickness (UT) measurements of the tank
bottom surface and LRC No. 6 would be revised to use manual cycle
counting to track and compare accumulated cycles against allowable
values to determine if cumulative usage factors are required to be
updated.
The proposed amendment would also approve revision of LRC No. 16
and LRC No. 19, which require, respectively, implementation of the One
Time Inspection Program as described License Renewal Application (LRA)
Section B.1.21, and implementation of the Selective Leaching Program as
described in LRA Section B.1.25. Specifically, the proposed amendment
would approve revising the Aging Management Program for Selective
Leaching described in LRA Section B.1.25 to provide alternative
assessment methods for gray cast iron components and approve revising
the One-Time Inspection Program described in LRA Section B.1.21 to
remove the reactor vessel flange leak-off line and main stream line
flow restrictors from the program.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment does not significantly increase the probability of
an accident since it does not involve a change to any plant
equipment that initiates a plant accident. The change revises
license renewal commitments and aging management programs. License
renewal commitments and aging management programs are in place to
ensure that the effects of aging are properly managed for the
systems, structures and components within the scope of the programs
during the period of extended operation. The proposed changes are
not an initiator or mitigator of any previously evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated
since it does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment
and does not change the method by which any safety-related system
performs its function. The change revises license renewal
commitments and aging management programs. License renewal
commitments and aging management programs are in place to ensure
that the effects of aging are properly managed for the systems,
structures and components within the scope of the programs during
the period of extended operation. No new or different types of
equipment will be installed and the basic operation of installed
equipment is unchanged. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect design codes or design
margins. The change revises license renewal commitments and aging
management programs. License renewal commitments and aging
management programs are in place to ensure that the effects of aging
are properly managed for the systems, structures and components
within the scope of the programs during the period of extended
operation. The proposed changes do not have the ability to affect
analyzed safety margins. Therefore, operation of VY in accordance
with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction
in the margin to 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. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: October 13, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated November 25, 2011, and January 18, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify
Technical Specification (TSs) 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3, ``Ultimate Heat Sink
Minimum Fan Requirements Per Train,'' which indicates the minimum Dry
Cooling Tower (DCT) and Wet Cooling Tower (WCT) fan requirements for
given meteorological conditions. The amendment would modify the WCT fan
requirements by placing a limit on the number of inoperable fans per
cell. This change is needed because the current TS requirement was
found to be non-conservative. To address non-conservatisms in the TS,
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), has implemented
administrative controls that limit the number of WCT fans allowed out-
of-service per cell. In concert with the above change, the dry bulb
temperature limits for the DCT and wet bulb temperature limits for the
WCT will also be lowered to accommodate the increased heat load
resulting from the Replacement Steam Generators.
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 modifies TS 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3 to be
consistent with the revised design basis calculation. This change is
necessary to preserve the assumptions and limits of the revised UHS
[ultimate heat sink] design basis calculation. The calculation
determines the maximum number of cooling tower fans allowed out-of-
service for a given wet or dry bulb temperature and establishes more
restrictive cooling tower fan operating requirements. The proposed
change does not directly affect any material condition of the plant
that could contribute to an accident or that could contribute to the
consequences of an accident. The proposed change ensures that the
mitigating effects of the UHS will be consistent with the design
basis analysis. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any
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 change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3 to be
consistent with the revised design basis calculation. The revised
calculation lowers the dry and wet bulb temperature limits to
account for increased heat duty for the Replacement Steam
Generators. This change also implements more restrictive WCT minimum
fan requirements. The proposed change to Table 3.7-3 does not alter
the operation of the plant
[[Page 22814]]
or the manner in which the plant is operated such that it created
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies TS 3/4.7.4 Table 3.7-3 to be
consistent with the revised design basis calculation. More
restrictive cooling tower fan operability requirements result from
placing lower limits on the wet and dry bulb temperatures in the TS
and limits on the number of WCT out-of-service fans per cell. These
revised temperatures are based on calculations ECM98-009 and ECl91-
029, and an additional allowance to account for minor inaccuracies.
The TS Bases 3.4/7.4 indicates that the calculated temperature
values associated with the DCT and WCT fan requirements have been
rounded in the conservative direction and lowered at least one full
degree to account for minor inaccuracies. The proposed change
preserves the margin of safety by ensuring that the minimum number
of operable fans per cell for a given temperature are capable of
removing the heat duty for the UHS. The proposed change does not
exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would relocate the
following Technical Specifications (TSs) to the Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), Technical Requirements Manual:
(a) TS 3.4.6, ``Chemistry,'' (b) TS 3.7.5, ``Flood Protection,'' (c) TS
3.7.9, ``Sealed Source Contamination,'' and (d) TS 3.9.5,
``Communications.''
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.
This proposed change relocates Technical Specifications (TS)
3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 3.7.5 (Flood Protection), TS 3.7.9 (Sealed
Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5 (Communications) to the
Waterford 3 Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). This is consistent
with the requirements of [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] and aligns with
NUREG-1432 (Combustion Engineering Standard Technical
Specifications).
Each TS relocation was evaluated against the [10 CFR
50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria to demonstrate no impact on the design
basis accident or probability. Consequently, this 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.
The proposed TS 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 3.7.5 (Flood Protection),
TS 3.7.9 (Sealed Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5
(Communications) relocation to the Waterford 3 TRM does not change
any of the controls necessary for design basis accident initiation
or mitigation. The proposed change is allowable because the
evaluation against the [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria shows no
impact. This provides assurance that the design basis accidents will
remain within their initial assumptions and consequently, there is
no possibility of a new or different kind of accident due to this
change.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS 3.4.6 (Chemistry), TS 3.7.5 (Flood Protection),
TS 3.7.9 (Sealed Source Contamination), and TS 3.9.5
(Communications) relocation to the Waterford 3 TRM will not affect
protection criterion for plant equipment and will not reduce the
margin of safety. The Waterford 3 TRM requires the [10 CFR 50.59]
process be entered for any corresponding change, thus maintaining
the required margin of safety. Consequently, there is no significant
reduction in a margin of safety due to this change.
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.
Florida Power Corporation, et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The NRC issued Amendment No. 239,
Departure from a Method of Evaluation for the Auxiliary Building
Overhead Crane (FHCR-5), on December 27, 2011. Amendment No. 239 was
approved to be implemented within 180 days of issuance of the
amendment. In license amendment request 312, Revision 0, the licensee
requested additional time to complete the implementation of Amendment
No. 239 from 180 days to, ``Implementation shall be completed 90 days
prior to moving a spent fuel shipping cask with FHCR-5.'' The licensee
requested extending the implementation period to allow for installation
and testing of the new single failure proof FHCR-5.
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 not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed LAR implementation schedule change request is
administrative in nature and does not require any physical plant
modifications, physically affect any plant systems or components, or
entail changes in plant operation. The spent fuel will remain in the
pool and continue to be cooled until the cask operations commence
after implementation is complete.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed LAR implementation schedule change request is
administrative in nature and does not require any physical plant
modifications, physically affect any plant systems or components, or
entail changes in plant operation. Maintenance and modification
activities near the spent fuel pools are controlled to preclude the
possibility of a heavy load drop. No new accident scenarios, failure
mechanisms or limiting single failures are introduced as result of
the proposed change. The proposed amendment implementation schedule
change request has no adverse effects on any safety-related system.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 22815]]
3. Does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The proposed LAR implementation schedule change request is
administrative in nature and does not require any physical plant
modifications, physically affect any plant systems or components, or
entail changes in plant operation. The proposed amendment
implementation schedule change request does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, FPC [the licensee] concludes that the
proposed license amendment request presents no significant hazards
consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and,
accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration''
is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, Post Office
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: May 14, 2010, as supplemented August 24,
2010, September 16, 2011, and March 15, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request was
originally noticed in the Federal Register on July 13, 2010 (75 FR
39979). This notice is being reissued in its entirety to include a
revised description of the amendment request. The proposed changes
would revise the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TSs)
governing the Containment Enclosure Emergency Air Cleanup System
(CEEACS). The proposed amendment would change TS Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate integrity of
the containment enclosure building rather than operability of CEEACS.
The proposed amendment relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with modifications to
new SR 4.6.5.2.b. Additionally, the proposed amendment makes some minor
wording changes, deletes a definition, and removes a moot footnote.
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC
staff's review is presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
The proposed change does not impact the physical function of plant
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs
perform their design function. The proposed changes neither adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions.
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of operable
SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
This change is a revision to the TSs SRs for the CEEACS, which is a
mitigation system designed to prevent uncontrolled releases of
radioactivity into the environment. The proposed amendment would change
TS SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 so that it will demonstrate integrity of the
containment enclosure building rather than operability of CEEACS. The
proposed amendment relocates SR 4.6.5.1.d.4 with modifications to new
SR 4.6.5.2.b. The CEEACS is not an initiator or precursor to any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not increased.
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 will not impact the accident analysis. The
changes will not alter the requirements of the CEEACS or its function
during accident conditions, and no new or different accidents result
from the proposed changes to the TSs. The changes do not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a significant change in the method of
plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis. Therefore, this request does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level
of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not involve a
significant change in the method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the
proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety
limits, will not relax any safety system settings, and will not relax
the bases for any limiting conditions for operation. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration
outside the design bases. The proposed change does not adversely affect
systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the
plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, these 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Florida Power & Light Company,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: January 20, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposed to revise
the MNGP Technical Specifications (TS), adding a new Section 5.6.5 to
specify requirements about the contents of a Pressure and Temperature
Limits Report (PTLR), and to replace existing TS requirements regarding
reactor vessel heatup and cooldown rate limits and the pressure and
temperature (P-T) limit curves referencing the PTLR. The proposed new
Section 5.6.5 is consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Generic
Letter 96-03, ``Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and
Low Temperature Overpressure Protection System Limits.'' These new
curves have been developed applying the analytical methodology
described in Structural Integrity Associates (SIA) Report SIR-05-044-A,
``Pressure-Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors,'' which has previously received NRC approval.
[[Page 22816]]
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 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.
Appendix G of 10 CFR 50 requires licensees to establish limits
for the pressure and temperature of the reactor coolant pressure
boundary (RCPB) in order to protect against brittle failure. These
limits are defined by P-T curves, which, when properly defined and
adhered to, will protect the RCPB against brittle failure regardless
of where these curves and associated requirements are located. The
proposed amendment only affects the location of the P-T limits
curves and associated requirements. The proposed amendment will
continue to ensure that P-T limits acceptable to the NRC staff are
employed at Monticello. There will be no design change associated
with the proposed amendment. Thus, 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 approved P-T limits, the proposed amendment, which will require
operation within approved P-T limits, 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 safety function of
the P-T limits, or any plant system, structure, or component (SSC)
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve
installation of any new SSC, and the existing installed SSC will not
be operated in a new or different manner. The relocated P-T limit
requirements will continue to protect the RCPB against brittle
failures. No setpoints will be changed which would alter the dynamic
response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are
introduced. The proposed amendment, therefore, 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.
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.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: December 23, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a new Radial
Peaking Factor definition and to clarify Limiting Condition for
Operation 2.10.2(6), ``Shutdown CEA [Control Element Assembly]
Insertion Limit During Power Operation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
[Response: No.]
There are no changes in plant systems, plant control operating
procedures or instrument alarm or trip settings associated with this
LAR [license amendment request]. Because neither physical equipment
nor operating methods for that equipment change, the probability of
accident initiation does not change. Therefore, the proposed TS
change does not does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The Unrodded Integrated Radial Peaking factor (FR)
has been used in past safety analyses and radiological consequence
analyses. These analyses utilized the assumption that FR
would remain within the TS limit during plant operations. These
analyses verify, for anticipated operational occurrences (AOO) and
postulated accidents (PA), that:
1. The departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) remains
above the appropriate TS Safety Limit, and
2. The calculated offsite doses and control room dose for the
affected events remain within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67, 10 CFR
100, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC) 19,
``Control room.''
All current safety analysis calculations are performed using the
Maximum Radial Peaking Factor (FR\T\) limit (which remains
unchanged), without exceeding the specified Safety Limits. The
radiological consequence events have used the FR\T\ limit to
determine the source strength.
Because the results of the transient analyses meet the Safety
Limits, and because the dose consequences of all analyzed events are
within the guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67, 10 CFR 100, and GDC 19, the
proposed LAR does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The remaining changes are administrative or editorial in nature.
Therefore, operation of the plant in accordance with the proposed TS
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
[Response: No.]
Operation of the plant in accordance with the proposed TS does
not add any new equipment, settings, or alter any plant operating
practices. The Unrodded Integrated Radial Peaking Factor
(FR) is a peaking factor no longer used in core design or
safety analyses. The definition of ``Maximum Radial Peaking Factor''
(FR\T\) is incorporated into the TS and current requirements for,
and references to FR\T\, are revised accordingly to reflect modern
day incore monitoring systems. The remaining changes are
administrative or editorial in nature. Since there are no changes in
operating plant equipment, settings, or normal operating practices,
operation in accordance with the proposed TS does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
[Response: No.]
The disposition of the [Updated Final Safety Analysis] Chapter
14 events, the setpoint verification, the fuel centerline melt (FCM)
and the minimum DNBR analyses will continue to use the Maximum
Radial Peaking Factor in accordance with approved methods. A
detailed XCOBRA-IIIC model, which incorporates the limiting radial
and axial power distributions, is applied to pre-trip departure from
nucleate boiling (DNB) event analyses to determine the minimum DNBR
values for limiting AOOs and PAs with the high thermal performance
(HTP) DNB correlation. A post-trip event (Main Steam Line Break) has
all CEAs inserted except for the most reactive CEA, and therefore
has different radial and axial power distributions to which the Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR) FR\T\ limit does not apply. The
calculated results for the limiting events meet the Safety Limits
specified in the TS. A simplified XCOBRA-IIIC model is used in the
verification of the plant protection system setpoints.
Therefore, operation of the plant in accordance with the
proposed TS does not involve a significant reduction in the 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
[[Page 22817]]
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: February 14, 2012, and revised on March
12, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, respectively, in regard to the structural
module stud size and spacing by increasing the carbon steel vertical
stud spacing, decreasing the stainless steel stud diameter, and
decreasing the stainless steel vertical and horizontal stud spacing in
accordance with the design basis. The departure from Tier 2*
information involves changes to Sheet 1 of plant-specific Design
Control Document Figure 3.8.3-8.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The design function of the containment modules is to support the
reactor coolant system components and related piping systems and
equipment. The design functions of the affected structural module in
the auxiliary building are to provide support and protection for new
and spent fuel and the equipment needed to support fuel handling,
cooling, and storage in the spent fuel racks, and to provide
support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I
mechanical and electrical equipment located outside the containment
building. The design function of the shear studs is to transfer
loads into the concrete of the structural modules. The proposed
change corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud size and spacing
for structural wall modules to be consistent with the underlying
design basis calculations, which are more conservative. The
thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not
adversely altered. The properties of the concrete included in the
modules are not altered. As a result, the design function of the
structural modules is not adversely affected by the proposed change.
There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change
described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, there is no
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed change corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud
size and spacing for structural wall modules to be consistent with
the underlying design basis calculations. Stud spacing and sizing
are updated such that stud loadings are within acceptable limits and
that the structural module acts in a composite manner. The
thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not
adversely altered. The material and thickness of the steel plates
are not altered. The properties of the concrete included in the
modules are not altered. The change to the internal design of the
structural modules does not create any new accident precursors. As a
result, the design function of the modules is not adversely affected
by the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No
The criteria and requirements of the [American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) Code] AISC-N690 provide a margin of safety
to structural failure. The design of the shear studs for the
structural wall modules conforms to criteria and requirements in
AISC-N690 and therefore maintains the margin of safety. The proposed
change corrects a drawing note regarding shear stud size and spacing
for the structural wall modules so as to be consistent with the
underlying design basis calculations. There was no change to the
method of evaluation from that used in the design basis
calculations. Therefore, the proposed change will not result in a
significant reduction in a margin of safety in the design and
analysis of the structural modules, including the containment
internal structures and module CA20 in the auxiliary building.
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. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined 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 or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the
NRC are accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by
email to [email protected].
[[Page 22818]]
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson
Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: January 20, 2011, as
supplemented by letter dated February 23, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air,''
Condition D, changing the emergency diesel generator starting air
receiver low air pressure limit from 100 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) to 150 psig, and corrects an editorial error related to the
numbering format in TS 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown,'' Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) Condition A, Required Action, from A.1.1
to A.1.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 228.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23. The amendment
revised the TSs and the Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21922). The February 23, 2012, supplement 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 initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Carolina Power and Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of application for amendment: January 13, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated October 6, 2011, February 24, and March
20, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.3.1 ``Fuel Assemblies'' to change the description
of fuel assemblies and added the AREVA NP Inc. Topical Report BAW-
10240(P)-A, ``Incorporation of M5TM Properties in Framatome
ANP Approved Methods,'' to the analytical methods referenced in TS
6.9.1.6. ``Core Operating Limits Report.'' The amendment also deletes
existing analytical methodologies that are no longer planned to be used
by the licensee in TS 6.9.1.6.2 to allow the use of M5TM
alloy for fuel rod cladding in future operating cycles.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No. 137.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63. Amendment revised
the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21922). The October 6, 2011, February 24, and March 20, 2012,
supplements 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 initial proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: May 9, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated June 30, and October 31, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the current
licensing basis regarding the manner in which service water is supplied
to the component cooling heat exchangers by the main return valves and
the bypass flow control valves.
Date of issuance: March 28, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 211.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: The amendment revised the
Updated Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR
67487).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: March 3, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Facility
Operating License No. NPF-21 for the Columbia Generating Station. The
changes either delete or modify existing license conditions which have
been completed, modified, or are otherwise no longer in effect. The
proposed changes were requested in order to support the Columbia
license renewal effort.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 223.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR
31372).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 (GGNS), Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: November 3, 2009, as
supplemented by letters dated February 8, 2010, May 18, 2010, June 3,
2010, June 18, 2010, July 29, 2010, September 29, 2010, December 13,
2010, December 14, 2010, May 3, 2011, May 16, 2011, May 26, 2011, May
31, 2011, June 13, 2011, June 28, 2011, July 22, 2011, September 28,
2011, October 18, 2011, October 26, 2011, November 8, 2011, and
December 1, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to reflect replacement of the existing Average
Power Range Monitor (APRM), Local Power Range Monitor, and Flow Unit
subsystems of the Neutron Monitoring System with a digital General
Electric Hitachi Nuclear Measurement Analysis and Control (NUMAC) Power
Range Neutron Monitoring System (PRNMS). The replacement system will
also change GGNS's Oscillating Power Range Monitoring (OPRM) function
from an Enhanced Option 1 A solution to Option III, which provides an
automatic instability detect-and-suppress long-term reactor core
stability solution. These changes are based on prior NRC approvals of
licensing topical reports for NUMAC-based PRNMS equipment and other
power plant experiences when performing similar changes. In addition,
the amendment added a provision to the facility operating license that
allows a monitoring period for the APRM scram function 2.f, ``OPRM
Upscale,'' before this function's trip output to the reactor protection
system trip system would be enabled. This license provision allows the
limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) that would otherwise be
[[Page 22819]]
associated with the ``OPRM Upscale'' function 2.f to be deferred until
the monitoring period is complete and the OPRM trip output is
permanently enabled. The amendment also revised the TSs in accordance
with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF) TSTF-493,
Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS
[limiting safety system settings] Functions,'' to add surveillance
notes in accordance with option A of TSTF 493, Revision 4, to address
instrumentation LCO issues that could occur during periodic testing and
calibration of instrumentation.
Date of issuance: March 28, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from refueling outage number 18.
Amendment No: 188.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2010 (75 FR
462). The supplemental letters dated February 8, 2010, May 18, 2010,
June 3, 2010, June 18, 2010, July 29, 2010, September 29, 2010,
December 13, 2010, December 14, 2010, May 3, 2011, May 16, 2011, May
31, 2011, June 13, 2011, June 28, 2011, July 22, 2011, September 28,
2011, October 18, 2011, October 26, 2011, November 8, 2011, and
December 1, 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 March 28, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 14, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.3.1, ``Leakage Detection Systems,'' for Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, to support the addition of an
alternative method of verifying that unidentified leakage in the
drywell is within limits. The alternate method uses the installed
drywell equipment drain sump (DWEDS) monitoring system, with the
drywell floor drain sump (DWFDS) overflowing to the DWEDS, to verify
that Reactor Coolant System leakage in the drywell is within limits.
This configuration would only be used when the DWFDS monitoring system
is unavailable.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 208 and 169.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85. These amendments
revised the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 9, 2011 (76 FR
48912).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: March 31, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status; establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable; and make TS Bases changes that reflect the proposed changes
and more accurately reflect the contents of the facility design basis
related to operability of the RCS leakage detection instrumentation.
Insofar as the St. Lucie Plant has custom TSs and TS Bases, to the
extent practical, these changes are consistent with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission approved Revision 3 to TS Task Force Improved
Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-513, ``Revise PWR [pressurized-water
reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189), as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
Date of Issuance: March 30, 2012.
Effective Date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--212 and Unit 2--161.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR
31374).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, and Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: July 16, 2010, as supplemented
by letters dated July 18, 2011, August 1, 2011, October 27, 2011, and
March 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification requirements related to control room envelope
habitability in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room
Habitability.'' TSTF-448 was made available by the NRC on January 17,
2007 (72 FR 2022) as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: Unit 3--248 and Unit 4--244.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 25, 2011 (76 FR
4386). The supplements dated July 18, 2011, August 1, 2011, October 27,
2011, and March 13, 2012, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendment: March 28, 2011, as supplemented
by letter dated February 5, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised TS 3.8.1,
``AC
[[Page 22820]]
[Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' to incorporate Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-163, Revision 2,
``Minimum vs. Steady State Voltage and Frequency,'' dated April 22,
1998. The amendments also revised the Final Safety Analysis Report
Update (FSAR Update) to identify an exception to Revision 0 of NRC
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9, ``Application and Testing of Safety-Related
Diesel Generators in Nuclear Power Plants'' (issued as NRC Safety Guide
9, ``Selection of Diesel Generator Set Capacity for Standby Power
Supplies,'' dated March 10, 1971).
The TS 3.8.1 surveillance requirements were revised per TSTF-163,
Revision 2, to verify minimum frequency and voltage, and steady state
frequency and voltage within limits following diesel generator start.
The FSAR Update is revised to specify an exception to RG 1.9, Revision
0, Regulatory Position C.4, for frequency recovery for the Auxiliary
Feedwater pump loading for DGs 1-1, 1-3, 2-2, and 2-3.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2012.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance. Implementation of the
amendments shall also include revision of the Final Safety Analysis
Report Update as described in the licensee's letter dated March 28,
2011.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--211; Unit 2--213.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 31, 2011 (76 FR
31375). The supplemental letter dated February 5, 2012, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of application for amendment: April 29, 2011, as supplemented
October 21, 2011.
Brief description of amendment t: The amendments revise the
Technical Specification (TS) section 3.4.15 RCS Reactor Coolant System
Leakage Detection Instrumentation, in accordance with the Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-513-A, Revision 3, titled
``Revise PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and
Actions for RCS Leakage [detection] Instrumentation.'' Specifically,
the proposed amendment would revise the TS to define a new time limit
for restoring inoperable RCS leakage detection instrumentation to
operable status and establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS
leakage when one or more required monitors are inoperable.
Date of Issuance: March 20, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos: Unit 1--187 and Unit 2--182.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendment
revises the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of notice in Federal Register: June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34768).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 20, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: April 22, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved changes to
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' by
making two administrative changes to TS 5.3.1.1. Specifically, the
changes removed the operator license applicants' education and
experience eligibility requirements, and corrected inadvertent
omissions in previous amendments relative to the Licensed Operators'
and Senior Operators' qualification requirements.
Date of issuance: April 2, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 198.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 23, 2011 (76 FR
52705).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards
[[Page 22821]]
consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has
been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some
time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may
provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been
requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been
consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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 or combined license. Requests for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in accessing the document,
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. 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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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.\1\ Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
[[Page 22822]]
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct
of the hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination
that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a
hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the
amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in
effect.
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 information (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System 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 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 document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: February 28, as supplemented March 2 and
March 9, 2012.
Description of amendment request: This amendment revised the FNP
[[Page 22823]]
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank,''
to permit the use of a seismically qualified boundary valve under
administrative controls for limited periods of time.
Date of issuance: March 24, 2012.
Effective date: April 23, 2012.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--188 and Unit 2--183.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendment
revises the technical specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. 77 FR 14441. The notice provided an
opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been received. The notice also provided
an opportunity to request a hearing by May 8, 2012, but indicated that
if the Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such hearing
would take place after issuance of the amendment.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated March 24, 2012.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch and Bingham Law
Firm, P.O. Box 306, Birmingham, Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of April 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Howe,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-9169 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P