[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50534-50541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20232]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0193]
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 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 August 8, 2012 to August 21, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 47123).
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-2012-0193.
You may submit comments by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0193. 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-2012-0193 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 are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0193.
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-2012-0193 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
[[Page 50535]]
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 Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 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) 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's 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 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.
[[Page 50536]]
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as Social Security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the 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's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 23, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
conform the Millstone Power Station Unit 3 (MPS3) licenses to reflect a
name change for Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (CVPS)
resulting
[[Page 50537]]
from a subsequent restructuring in which CVPS will be consolidated with
Gaz M[eacute]tro's other electric utility subsidiary in Vermont, Green
Mountain Power Corporation.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required in Sec. 50.91(a) of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Operation of the facility would not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This request is for an administrative change only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed change.
Therefore, this request will have no impact on the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Operation of the facility would not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This request is for an administrative change only. No actual
facility equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed change and no failure modes not bounded by previously
evaluated accidents will be created.
Therefore, this request will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility would not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
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. This request is for an
administrative change only. No actual plant equipment or accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the
proposed change 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 of operation.
Therefore, this 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: George A. Wilson.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 3, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 6, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will
revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow use of the
Backup Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System when the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling
System is out of service.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required in 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?
No. The proposed changes revise the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow using the Backup Spent Fuel Pool
Cooling System (BSFPCS) as a stand-alone system when the Spent Fuel
Pool Cooling System (SFPCS) is out of service for maintenance and
repair. The SFPCS is allowed to be taken out for maintenance and
repairs. The current design, if the SFPCS were out of service due to
maintenance, repair or failure, would be to add make up water to the
SFP to provide cooling and prevent loss of water level due to
boiling. The use of the BSFPCS during times when the SFPCS is out of
service for maintenance and repairs provides alternate cooling to
limit the SFP temperature during these periods. The failure of the
SFPCS and the addition of water is not an accident and consequences
are not evaluated. Therefore, the BSFPCS does not mitigate
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Similarly, the
BSFPCS is not the initiator of any accident.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes revise the UFSAR to allow using the
BSFPCS when the SFPCS is out of service for maintenance and repair.
The proposed changes involve the use of alternate equipment but
failures do not result in different consequences from those of the
existing system. The proposed revision to use the BSFPCS as a stand-
alone system is not a change to the way that existing equipment is
operated. The change involves the use of an alternate cooling system
but the design is not associated with accident initiation so no new
accident initiators are created. The proposed change involves
administrative controls to assure the system capability.
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?
No. The proposed changes revise the UFSAR to allow using the
BSFPCS as a stand-alone system when the SFPCS is out of service for
maintenance and repair. The SFPCS is considered more robust than the
BSFPCS in terms of its capability to restore operation with a hotter
spent fuel pool. However, the BSFPCS will be used as a standalone
system only when taking the SFPCS out of service for maintenance and
repair. The current allowance is to take the SFPCS out of service
for repairs so the BSFPCS will provide margin to reduce the
likelihood of SFP boiling. While in service, a postulated moderate
energy line break in the BSFPCS can increase the amount of water
that can be lost from the SFP. However, the reduced level does not
affect the ability to supply makeup water to the SFP to raise the
level and provide cooling so there is no significant reduction in
the margin for safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William C. Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
[[Page 50538]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-352 and No. 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 6, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) Sections 5.3.1/6.3.1, ``Unit
(or Facility) Staff Qualifications,'' for operator license applicants
with the current industry standards for education and eligibility
requirements. The proposed amendment would permit changes to the unit
(or facility) staff qualification education and experience eligibility
requirements for licensed operators. The proposal will bring Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) into alignment with current industry
practices.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment involve significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The NRC considered the impact of previously evaluated accidents
during the rulemaking process, and by promulgations of the revised
10 CFR Part 55 rule, determined that this impact remains acceptable
when licensees have an accredited licensed operator training program
which is based on a system approach to training (SAT). EGC maintains
an institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) National Academy for
Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited program which is based on a SAT.
The NRC has concluded in RIS 2001-01, ``Eligibility of Operator
License Applicants,'' and NUREG-1021, ``Operator Licensing
Examination Standards For Power Reactors,'' that standards and
guidelines applied by INPO in their accredited training programs are
equivalent to those put forth by or endorsed by the NRC. Therefore,
maintaining an INPO accredited SAT-based licensed operator training
program is equivalent to maintaining an NRC approved licensed
operator training program which conforms to applicable NRC
Regulatory Guidelines or NRC endorsed industry standards. The
proposed changes conform to NANT ACAD 10-001 licensed operator
education and experience eligibility requirements.
Based on the above, Exelon concludes that the proposed changes
do not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the licensed operator
training programs, which are administrative in nature. The EGC
licensed operator training programs have been accredited by National
Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) and are based on a SAT, which the
NRC has previously found to be acceptable.
Based on the above discussion, EGC concludes that the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes are administrative in nature. The
proposed TS changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system
operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. The
proposed changes do not significantly impact the performance or
proficiency requirements for licensed operators. As a result, the
ability of the plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is
unchanged by the proposed TS changes. Therefore, these changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation of the three criteria, EGC
concludes that the proposed amendment 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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael Dudek.
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: August 1, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP Units 3 and 4,
respectively, in regard to the concrete and reinforcement details
specified compressive strength for the nuclear island basemat. The
basemat is the common 6-foot-thick, cast-in-place, and reinforced
concrete foundation for the nuclear island structures, consisting of
the containment, shield building, and auxiliary building. The departure
from the Tier 2* information involves changing the concrete specified
compressive strength from 4000 psi to 5000 psi for the basemat in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Subsection 3.8.4.6.1.1 and
removing the 0'' dimension from the Lower-Section detail that
represents the basemat below the exterior wall in UFSAR Figure 3H.5-3.
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 basemat is to provide the interface
between the nuclear island structures and the supporting soil. The
basemat transfers the load of nuclear island structures to the
supporting soil. The basemat
[[Page 50539]]
transmits seismic motions from the supporting soil to the nuclear
island.
The change to the concrete/rebar details for the basemat does
not have an adverse impact on the response of the basemat and
nuclear island structures to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions
or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident
conditions because there is not an adverse change to the seismic
floor response spectra and transient and postulated accidents are
not affected by seismic motions. The change to the concrete/rebar
details for the basemat does not impact the support, design, or
operation of mechanical and fluid systems because [the] change in
the loads on these systems due to seismic motions is negligible.
There is no change to the design of plant systems or the response of
systems to anticipated transients and postulated accident
conditions. The basemat supports the structures and the mechanical
system and component supports. There is no change to this function.
Because the change to the concrete/rebar details does not change the
response of systems to postulated accident conditions and is
unrelated to any accident source term parameters, there is no change
to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident
conditions. Therefore, there is no change to the consequences of an
accident before or after implementation of the proposed amendment.
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
difference between the probability of a seismically induced event
before or after the implementation of the proposed amendment. The
concrete specified compressive strength and 0'' dimension are not
parameters considered as an initiator for any accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, there is no difference in the probability or
consequences of a seismically induced event before or after
implementation of the proposed amendment.
Based on the considerations outlined above, 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 is an increase in the concrete specified
compressive strength for the basemat and a change in the
reinforcement details. The change to the concrete/rebar details does
not change the design function of the basemat or nuclear island
structures. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not change
the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and
fluid systems. Because the basemat will be designed to the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Codes specified in the UFSAR and the
concrete will be specified, mixed, batched and placed to the same
codes and standards specified in the UFSAR, the change to the
concrete/rebar details does not result in a new failure mechanism
for the basemat or new accident precursors. As a result, the design
function of the basemat 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 margin of safety for the design of the seismic Category I
structures including the basemat is determined by the use of the ACI
349 code and the analyses of the structures required by the UFSAR.
The change to the concrete/rebar details does not have an adverse
impact on the strength of the basemat. The change to the concrete/
rebar details does not have an adverse impact on the seismic design
spectra or the structural analysis of the basemat or other nuclear
island structures. The change to the concrete/rebar details does not
significantly impact the analysis requirements or results for the
nuclear island for bearing, settlement, construction sequence,
sliding, or overturning, because there is no change in the analysis
assumptions for density, weight, friction, or seismic motions due to
the increase in the concrete specified compressive strength. There
is no increase in the portions of the basemat subject to predicted
lift-off (zero contact force) during seismic motions analyzed for
the safe shutdown earthquake. There is minimal change to soil
pressures on the basemat due to the change in stiffness of the
basemat. As a result, the design function of the basemat is not
adversely affected by the proposed change.
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: 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 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's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: July 21, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank
(RWST),'' and 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray System.''
Date of issuance: July 25, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-269 and Unit 2-265.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments
[[Page 50540]]
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 20, 2012 (77 FR
16274).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 20, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated May 10, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The licensee will be replacing the
two Waterford 3 steam generators (SGs) during the 18th refueling
outage, which will commence in the fall of 2012. The existing Waterford
3 SG Program under Technical Specification (TS) 6.5.9, ``Steam
Generator (SG) Program,'' contains an alternate repair criterion for SG
tube inspections that is no longer applicable to the replacement SGs.
Additionally, the replacement SGs will contain improved Alloy 690
thermally treated tubing material, which extends the SG tubing
inservice inspection frequencies beyond that currently allowed by the
Waterford TSs. The amendment modified TS 3/4.4.4, ``Steam Generator
(SG) Tube Integrity,'' TS 6.5.9, and TS 6.9.1.5, ``Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report,'' to reflect the above changes.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the first SG tube inservice inspection for the replacement
SGs.
Amendment No.: 236.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 4, 2011 (76 FR
61395). The supplemental letter dated May 10, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: August 10, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated April 30 and June 19, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1 pertaining to periodic
verification of battery bank capacity and inter-cell and connection
resistance.
Date of issuance: August 8, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 3-252 and Unit 4-248.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 18, 2011 (76 FR
64392). The supplements dated April 30 and June 19, 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 August 8, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 25, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated June 29, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment deletes an
outdated reference to a specific date delineated in License Condition
2.B.(2) to be consistent with the wording found in the corresponding
license condition at multiple stations including Nine Mile Point Unit 2
and Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the proposed amendment
removes the words, ``as of February 4, 1976,'' from License Condition
2.B.(2). This license condition authorizes NMPNS to ``* * * receive,
possess and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel,
in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for
reactor operation, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report as
supplemented and amended.''
Date of issuance: July 30, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
90 days.
Amendment No.: 213.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment
revises the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (76 FR
37849).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: February 2, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, SR 3.5.1.12, and
SR 3.6.1.5.1 to provide an alternative means for testing of main steam
system safety/relief valves during various modes of operation.
Date of issuance: July 27, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance, to be implemented prior to startup from the 2013
Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.: 168.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Appendix A, Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 6, 2012 (77 FR
13373).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 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 amendment request: September 9, 2011, as supplemented on
February 3 and
March 30, 2012.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendments revise
Technical Specification (TS) to add Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.14
to TS Table 3.3.1-1, Function 3, the Power Range Neutron Flux High
Positive Rate Trip function.
Date of issuance: August 7, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-189 and Unit 2-184.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments
changed
[[Page 50541]]
the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 13, 2011 (76
FR 77572).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of application for amendments: August 27, 2010, as
supplemented on April 11, 2011, and January 13, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendments add a new Action
to Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency
Ventilation (CREV) System,'' to modify the proposed completion time for
restoration of inoperable HEPA filters and/or charcoal adsorbers to 7
days to restore an inoperable HEPA filter and 14 days to restore an
inoperable charcoal adsorber, provided the flowrate requirements of the
Ventilation Filter Testing Program are maintained. Additionally, the
amendments correct errors in Unit 2 TS page header information that
occurred during issuance of TS pages for a previous amendment.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2012.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented within 14 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--282, Unit 2--308, and Unit 3--267.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (75
FR 74097).
The supplements dated April 11, 2011, and January 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-20232 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P