[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67679-67688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27384]
[[Page 67679]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0274]
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 October 18, 2012 to October 31, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 30, 2012 (77 FR 65720).
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-
0274. 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-2012-0274. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0274 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0274.
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-2012-0274 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 that that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely 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 that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely 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
[[Page 67680]]
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's
PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are
accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date,
the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the
Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC'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
[[Page 67681]]
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. 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's Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: October 2, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to support operations with 24-month fuel
cycles in accordance with the guidance of NRC Generic Letter 91-04,
``Changes in Technical Specification Surveillance Intervals to
Accommodate a 24 Month Fuel Cycle,'' dated April 2, 1991. In addition,
consistent with this guidance, the amendment would change testing
frequencies from 18 to 24 months in TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter
Testing Program (VFTP).''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle
length. The proposed TS changes do not physically impact the plant.
The proposed TS changes do not degrade the performance of, or
increase the challenges to, any safety systems assumed to function
in the accident analysis. The proposed TS changes do not impact the
usefulness of the SRs in evaluating the operability of required
systems and components, or the way in which the surveillances are
performed. In addition, the frequency of surveillance testing is not
considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a
revision to the frequency introduce any accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not
significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident. Evaluation of the proposed TS changes
demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not
significantly affected because of other more frequent testing that
is performed, the availability of redundant systems and equipment,
and the high reliability of the equipment. Historical review of
surveillance test results and associated maintenance records did not
find evidence of failures that would invalidate the above
conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle
length. The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure
mechanisms of a
[[Page 67682]]
different type than those previously evaluated, since there are no
physical changes being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed
equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no
new failure modes are being introduced. The way surveillance tests
are performed remains unchanged. A historical review of surveillance
test results and associated maintenance records indicated there was
no evidence of any failures that would invalidate the above
conclusions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involve a change in the surveillance
testing intervals to facilitate a change in the operating cycle
length. The impact of these changes on system availability is not
significant, based on other more frequent testing that is performed,
the existence of redundant systems and equipment, and overall system
reliability. Evaluations have shown there is no evidence of time
dependent failures that would impact the availability of the
systems. The proposed changes do not significantly impact the
condition or performance of structures, systems, and components
relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed changes do not
result in any hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical
limits assumed in accident analyses. Existing operating margin
between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints is not
significantly reduced due to these changes. The proposed changes do
not significantly impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN
50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Braidwood), Will County,
Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1
and 2 (Byron), Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: July 23, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Braidwood and Byron Technical Specifications (TS) to delete the
limiting condition for operation (LCO) note associated with TS 3.5.3,
``[Emergency Core Cooling System] ECCS--Shutdown,'' to reflect current
plant configuration and ensure Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system
operability meets the TS 3.5.3 LCO requirement.
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 to delete the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note will ensure
that one train of RHR remains aligned for ECCS mode of operation as
required to mitigate an accident described in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changes to not affect
the design, operational characteristics, and function of the ECCS
and RHR systems to mitigate a design basis accident (DBA).
Furthermore, the interfaces between the RHR system and other plants
systems' operating functions, or the reliability of the RHR system
are not impacted by the proposed changes. Since the ECCS and RHR
systems are not accident initiators, the proposed changes do not
impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed accidents, nor do
they impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events.
Therefore, the ECCS and RHR systems will be capable of performing
their accident mitigation functions, and the proposed deletion of
the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident.
The proposed changes will ensure that one train of RHR be
available for ECCS mode of operation during MODE 4 to ensure that
the RHR system, as a subsystem of ECCS, is operable for ensuring
sufficient ECCS flow is available to the core for mitigating the
consequences of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Thus, the
proposed deletion of the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed deletion of the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note does not change
the design function or operation of the RHR system components, or
maintenance activities. The proposed changes do not change or
introduce any new or different type of equipment, modes of system
operation, failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
The proposed changes will ensure that one train of ECCS is operable
to mitigate the consequences of a LOCA as previously assumed in the
UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This proposed changes delete the TS 3.5.3 LCO Note will ensure
that TS 3.5.3 LCO requirements is met to ensure that sufficient ECCS
flow is available to the core following a DBA, such as a LOCA, as
described in the UFSAR. The proposed changes will review the
existing non-conservative TS to reflect current plant configuration
that the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) temperature must be reduced to
less than or equal to 200 [deg]F [degrees Fahrenheit] in order to
eliminate the potential for flashing of hot water within the
isolated RHR system hot leg suction piping during transfer to the
ECCS recirculation sump. The proposed changes will ensure the RHR
system operability to meet TS 3.5.3 LCO requirement and do not
affect the ability of the RHR system to provide long-term capability
for core cooling following a LOCA.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed amendments
do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding
of no significant hazards consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (PNPP), Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: July 3, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [alternating
current] Sources--Operating.'' Specifically, the proposed amendment
will modify nine surveillance requirements (SRs) by excluding Division
2 from the current mode restrictions, thus allowing performance of the
subject SRs in any mode of plant operation. The proposed amendment also
deletes expired TS 3.8.1 provisions regarding use of a delayed access
circuit.
[[Page 67683]]
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This amendment request proposed to remove MODE restrictions on
certain Division 3 AC sources surveillance tests, allowing testing
in any MODE of operation. The Division 3 AC sources, including the
diesel generator (DG) and its associated emergency loads are
accident mitigating features, not accident initiators. This proposed
amendment does not change the design function of the Division 3 AC
sources, including the DG of any of its required loads, and does not
change the way the systems and plant are operated or maintained.
This proposed amendment does not impact any plant systems that are
accident initiators and does not adversely impact any accident
mitigating systems.
The proposed amendment does not affect the operability
requirements for the AC sources, as verification of such operability
will continue to be performed as required. Continued verification of
operability supports the capability of Division 2 AC sources to
perform their required design functions of providing emergency power
to high pressure core spray (HPCS) system equipment, consistent with
the plant safety analyses. Limiting testing to only one AC source at
a time also ensures that design basis requirements are met. Should a
fault occur while testing the Division 3 AC sources, there would be
no significant impact on any accident consequences since Division 1
and 2 AC sources and their respective emergency loads would be
available to provide the safety functions necessary to shut down the
unit and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition.
Removing the MODE restrictions associated with certain Division
3 surveillance requirements, this allowing testing to occur in any
MODE of operation, will not significantly increase the probability
of an accident previously evaluated because the Division 3 DG and
its emergency loads are accident mitigation features, not accident
initiators.
Removing the MODE restrictions associated with certain Division
3 surveillance requirements, this allowing testing to occur in any
MODE of operation, will not change the dose analyses associated with
the [Updated Safety Analysis Report] USAR Chapter 15 accidents
because accident mitigation functions and requirements remain
unchanged.
This amendment request also proposes to remove temporary TS
3.8.1 provisions related to the use of the delayed access circuit.
Effective October 17, 2011, the temporary provisions support plant
startup and normal operation until the Unit 1 startup transformer
was returned to service. The provisions expired on December, 12,
2011, after the Unit 1 startup transformer was returned to service.
Removing the provisions will not increase the probability of an
accident previously evaluated since the provisions are no longer
required or applicable. Removing the provisions will not change any
of the dose analyses associated with the USAR Chapter 15 accidents
because accident mitigation functions and requirements remain
unchanged as a result of the removal. Removing the expired
provisions does not affect or alter any other aspect of this
amendment request.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
This amendment request proposes to remove the MODE restrictions
associated with certain Division 3 AC sources surveillance
requirements. The proposed amendment does not change the design
function of the Division 3 AC sources or any required loads, and
does not change the way the systems and plant are operated or
maintained. This proposed amendment does not impact any plan systems
that are accident initiators and does not adversely impact any
accident mitigating systems. Performance of these surveillance tests
in any operating MODE will continue to verify operability of the
Division 3 AC sources.
This amendment request also proposes to remove temporary TS
3.8.1 provisions related to the use of the delayed access circuit.
Effective October 17, 2011, the temporary provisions support plant
startup and normal operation until the Unit 1 startup transformer
was returned to service. The provisions expired on December, 12,
2011, after the Unit 1 startup transformer was returned to service.
Removing the provisions will not increase the probability of an
accident previously evaluated since the provisions are no longer
required or applicable. Removing the expired provisions does not
affect or alter any other aspect of this amendment request.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This amendment request proposes to remove the MODE restrictions
associated with certain Division 2 diesel generator surveillance
requirements. Margin of safety is related to the ability of the
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and
following postulated accidents. This proposed amendment does not
involve or affect fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, or the
primary containment. Performing Division 3 surveillance testing
online increases the Division 3 DG and HPCS system availability
during refueling outages and allows the testing to be conducted when
both Division 1 and 2 systems are required to be OPERABLE, not
significantly difference than when performed other Division 3
surveillance tests that do not have similar MODE restrictions.
This amendment request also proposes to remove temporary TS
3.8.1 provisions related to the use of the delayed access circuit.
Effective October 17, 2011, the temporary provisions support plant
startup and normal operation until the Unit 1 startup transformer
was returned to service. The provisions expired on December, 12,
2011, after the Unit 1 startup transformer was returned to service.
Removing the provisions will not increase the probability of an
accident previously evaluated since the provisions are no longer
required or applicable. Removing the expired provisions does not
affect or alter any other aspect of this amendment request. When
they were effective, the provisions did not involve fuel cladding,
reactor coolant system, or the primary containment. Removing the
provisions does not involve or affect fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system, or the primary containment. The proposed amendment does not
involve a physical change to the plant, methods of plant operation,
or maintenance of equipment important to safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in any
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, FENOC concludes that the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding
of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop. A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2012, as supplemented by letter
dated October 23, 2012.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.7.1, entitled ``High Radiation Areas
with Dose Rates not Exceeding 1.0 rem [roentgen equivalent man]/hour at
30 Centimeters from the Radiation Source or from any Surface Penetrated
by the Radiation,'' and 5.7.2, entitled ``High Radiation Areas with
Dose Rates Greater than 1.0 rem/hour at 30 Centimeters
[[Page 67684]]
from the Radiation Source or from any Surface Penetrated by the
Radiation, but less than 500 rads/hour at 1 Meter from the Radiation
Source or from any Surface Penetrated by the Radiation,'' to allow
entry into high radiation areas by personnel continuously escorted by
individuals qualified in radiation protection procedures as long as the
escorted personnel receive a pre-job briefing prior to entry into such
areas . In addition, the amendment would incorporate an unrelated
editorial change to TS Table 3.3.3-1, ``Post Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation.'' The title for the TS Table 3.3.1-1 column
``CONDITION REFERENCED FROM REQUIRED ACTION E.1,'' will be corrected to
read, ``CONDITION REFERENCED FROM REQUIRED ACTION D.1,'' to be
consistent with Required Actions for Condition D of TS 3.3.3.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications has no
impact on accident initiation or mitigation. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications has no
impact on accident initiation or mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications has no
impact on accident initiation or mitigation. The proposed change
will allow for the positive radiation protection control of
activities in High Radiation Areas. This is consistent with the
requirements of [10 CFR 20.1601(a)] and [10 CFR 20.1601(c)].
Therefore the proposed change does not involve 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 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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 9, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
relocate Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition of Operation
(LCO) 2.17, Miscellaneous Radioactive Material Sources, and the
associated surveillance requirement (SR) 3.13, Radioactive Material
Sources Surveillance, from the TSs. NUREG-1432, Revision 3, ``Standard
Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants,'' June 2004
(ADAMS Accession No. ML041830597), does not contain a TS or SR for
radioactive sources surveillance. The operability and surveillance
requirements for leak checking of miscellaneous radioactive material
sources will be incorporated into the Fort Calhoun Station Updated
Safety Analysis Report and associated plant procedures.
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.
Miscellaneous radioactive sources are not part of any transient
or accident analysis.
The proposed changes conform to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC's) regulatory guidance regarding the content of
plant TS as identified in 10 CFR 50.36 and NRC publication NUREG-
1432.
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.
The proposed change relocates the requirements for leak checking
miscellaneous radioactive material sources to a licensee controlled
document subject to the controls of 10 CFR 50.59. This change does
not alter the physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis
assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. Hence, the
proposed change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor
does it reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant
structure or system in the performance of their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the requirements for leak checking
miscellaneous radioactive material sources to a licensee controlled
document subject to the controls of 10 CFR 50.59. This change does
not alter any 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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 26, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos.: NPF-93 and NPF-94 for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, respectively, by improving the
translation of Tier 2 Information into Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 Definition of
Wall Thicknesses for Nuclear Island Buildings, Turbine Building, and
Annex Building for technical consistency, clarity, and completeness.
This change is identified as an administrative change. There will be no
design changes based on the improved translation of Tier 2 information.
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.
[[Page 67685]]
Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C)
Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, clarity
and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-specific DCD
Tier 2 change. The changes do not affect the prevention and
mitigation of any abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles,
or their safety or design analyses. The probabilistic risk
assessment (plant-specific DCD Chapter 19) is not affected. No
safety-related or nonsafety-related structure, system, component
(SSC) or function is affected. The Tier 1 changes do not affect any
SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus,
the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific
DCD or UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes do not involve
any safety-related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific DCD or
UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed activity 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.
Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C)
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency,
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification
will be affected by the changes. The changes do not result in a new
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect
safety or safety-related equipment. This activity will not allow for
a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would
result in significant fuel cladding failures.
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.
Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C)
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency,
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification
will be affected by the changes. The Table 3.3-1 building wall, roof
and floor changes are only descriptive. The requested changes will
not affect any safety-related equipment, design code, function,
design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety
margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved by the requested changes, thus, no margin of
safety is reduced.
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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Station (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos.: NPF-91 and NPF-92 for VEGP Units 3 and 4,
respectively, by improving the translation of Tier 2 Information into
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 Definition of Wall Thicknesses for Nuclear Island
Buildings, Turbine Building, and Annex Building for technical
consistency, clarity, and completeness. This change is identified as an
administrative change. There will be no design changes based on the
improved translation of Tier 2 information.
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.
Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C)
Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency, clarity
and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-specific DCD
Tier 2 change. The changes do not affect the prevention and
mitigation of any abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles,
or their safety or design analyses. The probabilistic risk
assessment (plant-specific DCD Chapter 19) is not affected. No
safety-related or nonsafety-related structure, system, component
(SSC) or function is affected. The Tier 1 changes do not affect any
SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus,
the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific
DCD or UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes do not involve
any safety-related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific DCD or
UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed activity 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.
Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C)
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency,
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification
will be affected by the changes. The changes do not result in a new
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect
safety or safety-related equipment.
This activity will not allow for a new fission product release
path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or
create a new sequence of events that would result in significant
fuel cladding failures.
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.
Plant-specific DCD Tier 1 (and corresponding COL Appendix C)
Tier 1 Table 3.3-1 proposed changes are for technical consistency,
clarity and completeness, and do not involve a design or plant-
specific DCD Tier 2 change. No fire, design or safety analysis is
affected. No system or design function or equipment qualification
will be affected by the changes. The Table 3.3-1 building wall, roof
and floor changes are only descriptive. The requested changes will
not affect any safety-related equipment, design code, function,
design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety
margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved by the requested changes, thus, no margin of
safety is reduced.
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. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Mark E. Tonacci.
[[Page 67686]]
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: July 19, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) hydrologic
analysis and results, including the design based flood (DBF) elevations
required to be considered in the flood protection of safety-related
systems, structures, or components (SSC) during external flooding
events, and verify the adequacy of the warning time for both rainfall
and seismically induced dam failure floods. The proposed changes
include updated input information and methodology, which includes the
use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydrologic Modeling System and
River Analysis System software and temporary flood barriers to prevent
overtopping of earthen embankments. As a result of these proposed
changes, DBF elevations at the WBN Unit 1 site are revised. These
changes are determined to impact existing flooding protection
requirements for several WBN Unit 1 SSCs, which include the Thermal
Barrier Booster (TBB) pump motors and Essential Raw Cooling Water
(ERCW) equipment required for flood mode operation located in the
Intake Pumping Station (IPS). To restore margin for the TBB pump
motors, a temporary flood protection barrier has been designed to be
installed around them prior to a Stage I flood warning; for the ERCW
equipment, a compensatory measure of staged sandbags to be constructed
into a berm at the IPS at any time prior to or during a Stage I flood
warning has been implemented. Permanent plant modifications are planned
to restore or gain additional margin.
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 physical changes to
plant systems, structures, or components to add flood protection
features to restore or gain additional margin between the revised
DBF elevations and limiting safety-related systems, structures, and
components; they do 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 WBN Unit 1 UFSAR from being performed
since the safety-related systems, structures, or components remain
adequately protected from the effects of external floods,
considering the temporary compensatory measures in place and upon
completion of planned permanent plant modifications; (3) alter any
assumptions previously made in evaluating radiological consequences;
or (4) affect the integrity of any fission product barrier.
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.
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, 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 flood protection of safety-related systems,
structures, or components during external flooding events, the
proposed changes do not prevent any safety-related systems,
structures, or components from performing their required functions
during an external flood considering the temporary compensatory
measures in place and upon completion of planned 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 amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
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.
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
[[Page 67687]]
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: October 13, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated November 25, 2011, January 18, 2012, April 3, 2012, May
22, 2012 and July 17, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.7.4, Table 3.7-3, ``Ultimate Heat Sink Minimum
Fan Requirements per Train,'' to account for replacement steam
generators and an inappropriate analysis methodology.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 237.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 17, 2012 (77 FR
22813). The supplemental letters dated November 25, 2011, January 18,
2012, April 3, 2012, May 22, 2012, and July 17, 2012, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam
Generator (SG) Program,'' and TS 5.6.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2
Model D5 Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report,'' to permanently
exclude portions of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Unit
2, Model D5 SG tube below the top of the SG tubesheet from periodic SG
tube inspections and to provide permanent reporting requirements
specific to CPNPP, Unit 2. The proposed alternate repair criteria would
replace similar, interim criteria for CPNPP, Unit 2, that was
applicable during Refueling Outage 12 (spring of 2011) and the
subsequent (current) operating cycle approved by NRC by letter dated
April 6, 2011.
Date of issuance: October 18, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to MODE 4 entry during startup from Unit 2 Refueling Outage 13.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-158; Unit 2-158.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR
35074).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 18, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendment: February 17, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated April 21, 2011, February 27, 2012, and
July 2, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs),'' Table
3.7.1-1, ``Maximum Allowable Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint
with Inoperable MSSVs,'' to remove a one-time note specific to DCPP,
Unit 2 for Cycle 15, which is no longer applicable or needed. The
licensee also proposed to revise the TS Bases, applicable to DCPP,
Units 1 and 2, to reflect a new analysis methodology for establishing
the reduced power range neutron flux high setpoint for one inoperable
MSSV as listed in TS Table 3.7.1-1. By letter dated April 21, 2011, the
licensee clarified that the proposed revision to the TS Bases is a
revision to the FSARU Sections 15.2.7.3, ``Results,'' and 15.2.16,
``References.''
Date of issuance: October 31, 2012.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance. Implementation of the
amendments shall also include revision of the Final Safety Analysis
Report Update as described in the licensee's letter dated April 21,
2011.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--212; Unit 2--214.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR
28475). The supplemental letters dated April 21, 2011, February 27,
2012, and July 2, 2012, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 1, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Vogtle
Units 3 and 4 plant-specific design control document Tier 2*
information by revising the details associated with the nuclear island
basemat concrete and reinforcement bar.
Date of issuance: October 18, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 3-1, and Unit 4-1.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 21, 2012 (77 FR
50538).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 17, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 6, 2012 and revised on April 12
and May 7, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Vogtle
Units 3 and 4 plant-specific design control document Tier 2*
information by revising the upper tolerance on the Nuclear Island (NI)
critical sections basemat thickness as identified in the plant specific
design control document.
Date of issuance: October 25, 2012.
[[Page 67688]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 3-2, and Unit 4-2.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 12, 2012 (77 FR
35076).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: May 23, 2012, supplemented by
letter dated August 23, 2012 (TS-SQN-12-01).
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.8.1 to include a surveillance requirement to
demonstrate the required offsite circuits OPERABLE at least once per 18
months by manually and automatically transferring the power supply to a
6.9 KiloVolt unit board from the normal supply to the alternate supply.
This change is necessary as a result of the planned modifications to
the plant design and operating configuration that will allow use of the
unit station service transformers as a power supply to an offsite
circuit.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from Unit 2 fall 2012 refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-332 and Unit 2-325.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 24, 2012 (76 FR
43379). The supplement letter dated August 23, 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 October 31, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of November 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-27384 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P