[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60146-60160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24285]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0226]
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 September 6, 2012, to September 19, 2012.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 14, 2012 (77 FR
56877).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available,
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0226. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0226. 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:
[[Page 60147]]
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0226 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-2012-0226.
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-2012-0226 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 section 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
[[Page 60148]]
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's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC'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 NRCs' 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
[[Page 60149]]
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. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the following three
factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1): (i) The information upon which the
filing is based was not previously available; (ii) the information upon
which the filing is based is materially different from information
previously available; and (iii) the filing has been submitted in a
timely fashion based on the availability of the subsequent information.
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].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 8, 2010, with a supplement
dated June 28, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
approve revisions to the updated final safety analysis report to
incorporate the licensee's reactor vessel internals inspection plan.
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. The NRC staff's analysis 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 license amendment request provides the report which
describes the reactor vessel internals inspection plan. The report
also provides a description of the inspection plan as it relates to
the management of aging effects consistent with previous
commitments. The inspection plan is based on technical report MRP-
227, Revision 0, ``Pressurized Water Reactors Internals Inspection
and Evaluation Guidelines'' and the additional criteria stated in
the NRC staff's safety evaluation of this technical report. The
inspection plan contains a discussion of operational experience,
time-limited aging analyses, and relevant existing programs.
The licensee's Reactor Vessel Internals Aging Management Program
includes the inspection plan and demonstrates that the program
adequately manages the effects of aging for reactor vessel internal
components and establishes the basis for providing reasonable
assurance that the reactor vessel internal components will remain
functional through the license renewal period of extended operation.
This license amendment request provides an inspection plan based
on industry work and experiences as agreed to in Duke Energy's
license renewal commitments for reactor vessel internals inspection.
It is not an accident initiator.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
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 reactor vessel internals inspection plan does not
change the methods governing normal plant operation, nor are the
methods utilized to respond to plant transients altered. The revised
inspection plan is not an accident initiator an event initiator. No
new initiating events or transients result from the use of the
reactor vessel internals inspection plan.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed safety limits have been preserved. The license
amendment request is for review and approval for the reactor vessel
internals inspection plan that Duke Energy committed to provide
prior to commencing inspections.
Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has determined 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 27, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications to allow each Keowee Hydro Unit to
be inoperable for an extended period of time in order to perform major
refurbishment work.
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.
This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day
Completion Time for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that one
Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is inoperable for > 72 hours, a Lee
Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing both standby buses, two
offsite power sources will be maintained available, and maintenance
on electrical distribution systems will not be performed unless
necessary. In addition, risk significant systems (Emergency
Feedwater System [EFW] and Standby Shutdown Facility [SSF]) will be
verified operable prior to entry into the 75-day Completion Time.
The temporary 75-day Completion Time will decrease the likelihood of
an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units and the
potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with
that action. Avoiding this risk offsets the risks associated with
having a design basis event during the temporary 75-day completion
time for having one KHU inoperable.
The temporary addition of the 75-day Completion Time does not
involve:
(1) A physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the
installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any
installed equipment in a new or different manner; or (4) a change to
any set points for parameters which initiate protective or
mitigation action.
[[Page 60150]]
There is no adverse impact on containment integrity,
radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main
steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new
radiological release pathways are created.
The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 75-
day Completion Time are the same as those that would occur during
the existing Completion Time. Duke Energy reviewed the Probabilistic
Risk Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights concerning the
configuration of ONS with one KHU. The results of the risk analysis
show a risk improvement if no maintenance is performed on the SSF,
EFW System, and AC Power System. The results of the risk analysis
show a small risk increase using the average nominal maintenance
unavailability values for the SSF, EFW System, and AC Power System.
By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be between
these two extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.C. During the time period
that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the
emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory
measures previously specified will be in place to minimize
electrical power system vulnerabilities.
The temporary 75-day Completion Time does not involve a physical
effect on the Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk of an
Oconee Unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or
credible accident scenarios are postulated from this activity.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary addition of a 75-day
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.C. During the time period
that one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the
emergency power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory
measures previously specified will be in place to minimize
electrical power system vulnerabilities.
The proposed TS change does not involve: (1) A physical
alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or
different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new
or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (5) any impact on
the fission product barriers or safety limits.
Therefore, this request 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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: April 17, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.A.5 and TS 4.5.A.5 to change
the normal position of the recirculation pump discharge bypass valves
from ``open'' to ``closed,'' and therefore, the safety function to
close in support of accident mitigation would be eliminated. The TSs
would be revised to require the valves to remain closed; their position
would be verified once per operating cycle.
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 recirculation system
discharge bypass valve normal position has been changed from
``open'' to ``closed.'' The safety function of the discharge bypass
valves is to be closed to support accident mitigation. Placing the
discharge bypass valves in the normally closed position is
consistent with station safety analysis and therefore does not have
a significant impact on the probability or consequence of an
accident.
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 change does not involve any new modes of operation.
The recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position has
been changed from ``open'' to ``closed.'' The valves previously had
a safety function to close and are designed to meet all code
requirements in the closed position. No new accident precursors are
introduced. Recirculation pump operating procedures have been
revised consistent with vendor guidance. 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 recirculation system discharge bypass valve normal position
has been changed from ``open'' to ``closed.'' With the valves
normally in the closed position safety margins are maintained. The
station safety analysis results are unchanged and margin to
regulatory limits is not affected. 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., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
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
Date of application for amendments: August 29, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable
snubbers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.8. This change
is based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) standard TS change TSTF-372, Revision
4. A notice of availability for this TS improvement using the
consolidated line item improvement process was published by the NRC
staff in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252).
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:
[[Page 60151]]
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported Technical Specification (TS) systems inoperable when the
associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function.
Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on the
delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported system inoperable
and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no different than
the consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions
while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and
Required Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change.
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.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation.
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.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change
restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical
Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally
eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to
provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does
the post-ISTS conversion TS.
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. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett
Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 16, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.5, ``Control Room Emergency
Ventilation System,'' to correct a clerical error identified in the
issued TS involving TS 3.7.5 Action ``c'' for Modes 5 and 6 that
omitted an applicable footnote.
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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, fuel storage racks, number of fuel assemblies
that may be stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP), decay heat
generation rate, or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system.
The proposed TS change will allow core alterations, fuel movement,
and positive reactivity changes in Modes 5 and 6 subject to the
conditions specified in the \++\footnote that actions have been
taken to permit indefinite system/component operation and the system
is in recirculation mode. The proposed change corrects a clerical
error by annotating TS 3.7.5 Action ``c'' with a modified footnote
consistent with the stated intent of the original license
submittals. The proposed amendments do not cause any physical change
to the existing spent fuel storage configuration or fuel makeup. The
proposed amendments do not affect any precursors to any accident
previously evaluated or do not affect any known mitigation equipment
or strategies.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may
be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel
pool cooling and cleanup system. The proposed TS change will allow
core alterations, fuel movement, and positive reactivity changes in
Modes 5 and 6 subject to the conditions specified in the footnote
that actions have been taken to permit indefinite system/component
operation and the system is in recirculation mode. The proposed
change corrects a clerical error by annotating TS 3.7.5 Action ``c''
with a modified footnote consistent with the stated intent of the
original license submittals.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 amendments do not change or modify the fuel, fuel
handling processes, fuel racks, number of fuel assemblies that may
be stored in the pool, decay heat generation rate, or the spent fuel
pool cooling and cleanup system. Therefore, the proposed amendments
have no impact to the existing margin of safety for subcriticality
required by 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4).
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: August 5, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
transition the DAEC fire protection program to a new risk-informed,
performance-based alternative per 10 CFR 50.48(c) which incorporates by
reference the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805
(NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light
Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants--2001.''
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
[[Page 60152]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
documents the analyses of design basis accidents (DBAs) at DAEC. The
proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor
alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the
facility and does not adversely affect the ability of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their design function.
SSCs required to safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a
safe shutdown (SSD) condition will remain capable of performing
their design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 805 provides an acceptable methodology
and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection
systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536, June
16, 2004). Engineering analyses, in accordance with NFPA 805, have
been performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed, performance-
based (RI-PB) requirements per NFPA 805 have been met.
NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative
to 10 CFR 50.48(b), satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General Design
Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, and meets the
underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations
and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth (DID) and the goals,
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in
Chapter 1 of the standard. The small increase in the net core damage
frequency associated with this LAR submittal is consistent with the
Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c)
allows self approval of fire protection program changes post-
transition. If there are any increases post-transition in core
damage frequency (CDF) or risk, the increase will be small and
consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains
capable of performing the assumed function. Therefore, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased with the implementation of this amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any kind of accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously
analyzed accident with offsite dose was included in the evaluation
of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter
the requirements or function for systems required during accident
conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing
basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and
(c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG 1.205 will not result in
new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design
function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR
33536, June 16, 2004).
The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire protection and
the impacts of fire on the plant that have already been evaluated.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind
of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not
involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a
new accident.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created with the implementation of this amendment.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of DAEC in accordance with the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment
assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment
does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their
design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and
to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design function.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit DAEC to adopt a new
fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in Revision 1 of RG
1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable
methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire
protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative
to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR
33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, which may include
engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire
modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the
performance-based methods do not result in 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. Mitchell S. Ross, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Istvan Frankl.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-364, Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: January 18, 2012.
Description of amendment request: On June 13, 2003, the NRC issued
Amendment No. 151 for FNP Unit 2 which added Note 3 to Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 and created new SR 3.4.11.4. Note 3 to SR
3.4.11.1 eliminated the requirement to cycle the Unit 2 Pressurizer
Power Operated Relief Valve (PORV) 02B31 MOV8000B during the remainder
of operating Cycle 16. This amendment also added SR 3.4.11.4 as a
compensatory action for the block valve while SR 3.4.11.1 was
suspended. This license amendment request proposes to delete Note 3
from SR 3.4.11.1 and delete SR 3.4.11.4 entirely from the FNP Unit 2
TS. This change is administrative in nature, because Cycle 16 for FNP
Unit 2 has been completed; FNP Unit 2 is currently operating in Cycle
22. Therefore, SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 and SR 3.4.11.4 are no longer
applicable.
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 change will remove Note 3 from Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 and delete SR 3.4.11.4 from the Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS). SR
3.4.11.1 Note 3 was
[[Page 60153]]
incorporated into the FNP Unit 2 TS as a result of a license
amendment request granted to SNC on June 3, 2003, which allowed SNC
to suspend cycling the Unit 2 Pressurizer Power Operated Relief
Valve (PORV) Q2B31 MOV8000B during the remainder of operating cycle
16. Additionally, TS SR 3.4.11.4 was added to provide a compensatory
action for the block valve while SR 3.4.11.1 was suspended.
SR 3.4.11.1 Note 3 and SR 3.4.11.1 were applicable for the
remainder of operating Cycle 16 which has been completed; FNP Unit 2
is currently operating in Cycle 22. Note 3 to SR 3.4.11.1 and SR
3.4.11.4 are no longer applicable; therefore, this proposed change
is administrative in nature.
This proposed administrative license amendment does not impact
any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events. The proposed change does not involve
the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to
the facility. The proposed change does not affect any plant
operations, design function, or analysis that verifies the
capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform
a design function. The proposed change does not change any of the
accidents previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). The proposed change does not affect SSCs, operating
procedures, and administrative controls that have the function of
preventing or mitigating any of these accidents.
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.
This proposed administrative license amendment does not affect
actual plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed change
will not change the design function or operation of any SSCs nor
result in any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. The
proposed amendment does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed
events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
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: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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: August 15, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
amend the Technical Specifications (TS) associated with the Low
Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System and the Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report (PTLR) for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant
(FNP).
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:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), Southern Nuclear Operating
Company (SNC) has evaluated the proposed changes to the FNP TS using
the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined that the proposed
changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. An
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is
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 involves changes to the TS requirements
to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were
determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as
well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and
temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of the reactor
vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during
operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment
proposes to adopt the NRC approved and TSTF 213-A and TSTF-419-A.
Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the LTOP applicability
temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant
references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed
change includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements
that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable
safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved
methods, and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for
Westinghouse Plants.
The proposed change to the TS does not affect the initiators of
any analyzed accident. In addition, operation in accordance with the
proposed TS change ensures that the previously evaluated accidents
will continue to be mitigated as analyzed. Thus, the proposed change
does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any
structures, systems, and components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed 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 involves changes to the TS requirements
to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were
determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as
well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and
temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of the reactor
vessel. The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during
operation at low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment
proposes to adopt the NRC approved TSTF-233-A and TSTF-419-A
Adoption of these TSTFs will relocate the L TOP applicability
temperature from the TS to the PTLR and will eliminate redundant
references in Sections 1.1 and 5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed
change includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements
that are consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable
safety analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved
methods and NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse
Plants. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration
of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The proposed change does not create any new failure
modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures.
Additionally the proposed change does not involve a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation and all safety functions
will continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses.
The pressure and temperature limit curves will continue to preserve
the integrity of the reactor vessel. The LTOP System will continue
to ensure that the appropriate fracture toughness margins are
maintained to protect against reactor vessel failure during low
temperature operation. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely
affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems,
and components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the TS requirements
to incorporate new pressure and temperature limit curves that were
determined with an NRC approved methodology for the LTOP system, as
well as incorporating that methodology into the TS. The pressure and
temperature limit curves preserve the integrity of reactor vessel.
The LTOP System provides overpressure protection during operation at
low RCS temperatures. In addition, this amendment proposes to adopt
the NRC approved TSTF-233-A and TSTF-419-A. Adoption of these TSTFs
will relocate the LTOP applicability temperature from the TS to the
PTLR and will eliminate redundant references in Sections 1.1 and
5.6.6 of the TS. Lastly, the proposed change
[[Page 60154]]
includes clarifications to the LTOP System TS requirements that are
consistent with the FNP design and preserve the applicable safety
analyses. The proposed changes are based on NRC approved methods and
NRC approved changes to the Standard TS for Westinghouse Plants.
The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of
plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident
analysis. The pressure-temperature limit curves and LTOP System
applicability temperature have been determined in accordance with
NRC approved methodologies. The proposed changes to the LTOP System
TS requirements remain consistent with the applicable LTOP System
design, and preserve the applicable safety analysis assumptions.
Additionally, no changes are made to the LTOP System function as
assumed in the applicable safety analysis.
Therefore, it is concluded that proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above analysis, SNC concludes that the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration,
under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), ``Issuance of
Amendment,'' 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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and
Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,
Alabama 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: August 1, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
would revise Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3-10, ``Accident
Monitoring Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required actions and
allowed outage times for inoperable instrumentation for Neutron Flux
(Extended Range) and Neutron Flux--Startup Rate (Extended Range)
(Instrument Nos. 19 and 23). The required actions will be revised to
enhance plant reliability by reducing exposure to unnecessary shutdowns
and increase operational flexibility by allowing more time to implement
required repairs for inoperable instrumentation. The proposed changes
are consistent with requirements generically approved as part of NUREG-
1431, Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision
4 (TS 3.3.3, ``Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) Instrumentation'').
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the actions and allowed outage times
of the neutron flux (extended range) and neutron flux--startup rate
(extended range) accident monitoring instrumentation. The
instrumentation is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased by these proposed changes.
The Technical Specifications continue to require the instrumentation
to be operable. Therefore, the neutron flux (extended range) and
neutron flux--startup rate (extended range) instrumentation will
continue to provide sufficient information on selected plant
parameters to monitor and assess these variables following an
accident. The consequences of an accident during the extended
allowed outage times are the same as the consequences during the
current allowed outage time. As a result, the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by
these proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the design, physical
configuration, or mode of operation of the plant. The neutron flux
(extended range) and neutron flux--startup rate (extended range)
accident monitoring instrumentation is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. No changes are being made to the
plant that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. The
proposed changes do not affect any other plant equipment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
analyzed.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the operation, function, or
modes of the plant or equipment operation. The proposed changes do
not change the level of assurance that the neutron flux (extended
range) and neutron flux--startup rate (extended range) accident
monitoring instrumentation will be available to perform its
function. The proposed changes provide a more appropriate time to
restore the inoperable channel(s) to operable status, and only apply
when one or more channels of the required instrument are inoperable.
The additional time to restore an inoperable channel to operable
status is appropriate based on the low probability of an event
requiring a neutron flux (extended range) accident monitoring
instrument during the interval, providing a reasonable time for
repair, and other means which may be available to obtain the
required information.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a reduction in
a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328,
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: August 10, 2012 (SQN-TS-12-02).
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to adopt a
revised hydrologic analysis for the SQN, Units 1 and 2 sites. These
proposed changes are consistent with the latest approved hydrology
calculations. The proposed changes in the updated hydrologic analysis
include updated input information, and updates to methodology that
includes use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Modeling
System and River Analysis System software. As a result of these
proposed changes, the design basis flood (DBF) elevations are revised.
These changes are determined to impact existing flooding protection
requirements for several safety-related systems, structures, or
components (SSCs), which include the spent fuel pit cooling pump motors
and applicable equipment required for flood mode operation located in
the diesel generator building. To restore margin for the spent fuel pit
cooling pump motors, the spent fuel pit cooling pump enclosure caps are
required to be in place in the event of a stage 1 flood warning as a
compensatory measure. For the diesel generator building, staged
sandbags to be constructed into a berm at any time
[[Page 60155]]
prior to or during the event of a stage 1 flood warning has been
established as a compensatory measure.
TVA will implement a documentation change to require the spent fuel
pit cooling pump enclosure caps as a permanent plant feature for
flooding protection, and will install permanent plant modifications to
provide adequate flooding protection with respect to the DBF level for
the diesel generator building, by March 31, 2013.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Although the proposed changes require some documentation and
physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components to add
flooding protection features to restore or gain additional margin
between the revised DBF elevations and limiting safety-related
systems, structures, and components; implementation of these changes
does not (1) prevent the safety function of any safety-related
system, structure, or component during an external flood; (2) alter,
degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in any accident
described in the SQN Units 1 and 2 UFSAR from being performed since
the safety-related systems, structures, or components remain
adequately protected from the effects of external floods; (3) alter
any assumptions previously made in evaluating radiological
consequences; or (4) affect the integrity of any fission product
barrier.
Therefore, this 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 changes do not introduce any new accident causal
mechanisms, nor do they impact any plant systems that are potential
accident initiators.
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 changes do not alter the permanent plant design,
including instrument set points, that is the basis of the
assumptions contained in the safety analyses. However, documentation
changes and permanent plant modifications are planned to restore or
gain additional margin between the revised DBF elevations and
limiting safety-related systems, structures, and components.
Although the results of the updated hydrologic analysis increase the
DBF elevations required to be considered in the flooding protection
of safety-related systems, structures, or components during external
flooding events, the proposed changes do not prevent any safety-
related SSCs from performing their required functions during an
external flood considering the temporary compensatory measures in
place and upon completion of planned documentation changes and
permanent plant modifications. Consistent with existing regulatory
guidance, including regulatory recommendations and discussions
regarding calibration of hydrology models using historical flood
data and consideration of sensitivity analyses, the hydrologic
analysis is considered to be a reasonable best estimate that has
accounted for uncertainties using the best data available.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 30, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam
generator tube inspections and reporting as described in TSTF-510,
Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection
Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
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:
Criterion 1
Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a
plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency
and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG
tubes are inspected such that the probability of an SGTR is not
increased. The consequences of an SGTR are bounded by the
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The
proposed change will not cause the consequences of an SGTR to exceed
those assumptions. The proposed change to reporting requirements and
clarifications of the existing requirements have no affect on the
probability or consequences of SGTR.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not
introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or
postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The
proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their
method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not
impact any other plant system or component.
Therefore, the possibility for a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
Criterion 3
Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes
also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant
from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of an SG
is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam
generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment,
and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not
affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change
will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the
SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of
safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
[[Page 60156]]
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482,
Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: June 13, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the
implementation schedule milestone scope and revise the renewed facility
operating license physical protection license condition (Paragraph 2.E
of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42).
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 to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change
does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems
are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The
proposed change does not require any plant modifications which
affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of
postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This proposed
change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any
initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in
which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or
inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant
modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents,
and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the WCNOC Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is
administrative in nature, there is no change to these established
safety margins.
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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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].
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: March 26, 2012, supplemented by
letter dated April 2, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.1.1.2, TS
Surveillance Requirement 4.19.2, TS 6.9.6, ``Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report,'' and TS 6.19, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,''
changing certain inspection periods and making other administrative
changes and clarifications. These changes are consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-510, Revision 2,
``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube
Sample Selection.''
Date of issuance: September 4, 2012.
Effective date: Immediately, and shall be implemented within 60
days.
Amendment No.: 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised
the license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 15, 2012 (77 FR
28631).
The supplement dated April 2, 2012, provided an application-
specific no significant hazards determination which was incorporated
into the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
[[Page 60157]]
consideration determination, as published in the Federal Register on
May 15, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 4, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: April 10, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revises
the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed
change revises TS 6.7.6.k, Steam Generator (SG) Program, to exclude a
portion of the tubes below the top of the SG tube sheet from periodic
tube inspections and plugging. The proposed change also establishes
permanent reporting requirements in TS 6.8.1.7, Steam Generator Tube
Inspection Report, that were previously implemented on a temporary
basis.
Date of issuance: September 10, 2012.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 131.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the TS
and the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2012 (77 FR
33248).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 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: April 5, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specifications to eliminate the lower allowable value limit of ``>= 18
minutes'' for Functions 1.e and 2.e, ``Reactor Steam Dome Pressure
Permissive--Bypass Timer (Pump Permissive),'' in Table 3.3.5.1-1,
``Emergency Core Cooling System Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: September 7, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance, and shall be implemented within 14 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 170.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 1, 2012 (77 FR
25759).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 7, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: March 22, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications for the steam generator tube inspection
program. Specifically, the amendments establish alternate SG tube
repair criteria for tubing flaws in the lower region of the tubesheet.
Date of Issuance: September 10, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-167 and Unit 2-149.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 25, 2012.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-327, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: September 29, 2011, as
supplemented on February 10, March 5, April 5, and May 22, 2012 (TS-
SQN-2011-05).
Brief description of amendment: During Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
(SQN), Unit 2, fall 2012 refueling outage (RFO), the replacement steam
generators will be installed. To support this activity, heavy load
lifts will be conducted. The proposed amendment added a one-time
license condition to the SQN, Unit 1 operating license for the conduct
of heavy load lifts for the Unit 2 steam generator replacement project
(SGRP). The one-time license condition established special provisions
and requirements for the safe operation of Unit 1, while large heavy
load lifts are performed on Unit 2. In addition, a one-time change to
Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' is
also proposed to implement additional restrictions with respect to
maximum average Essential Raw Cooling Water System supply header water
temperature during large heavy load lifts performed to support the Unit
2 SGRP during the fall 2012 RFO.
Date of issuance: September 6, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 330.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-77: Amendment revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 27, 2011 (76
FR 80977). The supplement letters dated February 10, March 5, April 5,
and May 22, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 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
[[Page 60158]]
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 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.
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.
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. 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
[[Page 60159]]
hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28,
2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve
all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail
copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper
copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance
with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2011, as supplemented
by two letters dated August 9, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR) Section 9.7.2.1.2, and Appendix B to provide
additional operating margin for measurement of the Ultimate Heat Sink
(UHS) temperature. The proposed change to Appendix B is to remove a
license condition that is no longer needed.
Date of issuance: August 10, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 311.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the License and Appendix B.
[[Page 60160]]
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, and final determination of no significant
hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August
10, 2012.
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.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of September 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-24285 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P