[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8195-8202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0020]
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
[[Page 8196]]
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 January 10 to January 23, 2013. The last
biweekly notice was published on January 22, 2013 (78 FR 4469).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publically available,
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2013-
0020. 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-2013-0020. 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-2013-0020 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document by any of the following
methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0020.
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-2013-0020 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 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
[[Page 8197]]
notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC'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-
[[Page 8198]]
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 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, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina;
and Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications to modify the end of cycle (EOC) moderator
temperature coefficient (MTC) Surveillance Requirement (SR) by allowing
an exemption to the SR if certain conditions are met. This conditional
exemption from the SR will be determined on a cycle-specific basis.
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 proposed amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability or consequences of accidents previously
evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are
unaffected by this proposed change. There is no change to any
equipment response or accident mitigation scenario, and this change
results in no additional challenges to fission product barrier
integrity. The proposed change does not alter the design,
configuration, operation, or function of any plant structure,
system, or component. Further, the existing limits on MTC
established by the Technical Specifications (TS), based on
assumptions in the safety analyses, remain unchanged and continue to
be satisfied. As a result, the outcomes of previously evaluated
accidents are unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity
of any safety-related system. The proposed change neither installs
nor removes any plant equipment, nor alters the design, physical
configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure, system,
or component. The MTC is a variable that must remain within
prescribed limits, but it is not an accident initiator. No physical
changes are being made to the plant, so no new accident causal
mechanisms are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no effect
on the availability, operability, or performance of the safety-
related systems and components. The proposed change does not alter
the design, configuration, operation, or function of any plant
structure, system, or component. The ability of any operable
structure, system, or component to perform its designated safety
function is unaffected by this change. A change to an SR is proposed
based on an alternate method of confirming that the surveillance is
met.
The TS and the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) establish
limits for the MTC based on assumptions in the accident analyses.
Applying the conditional exemption from the MTC measurement changes
the method of meeting the SR; however, this change does not modify
the COLR values and ensures adherence to the current COLR limits.
The basis for the derivation of the MTC Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) and SR limits from the MTC assumed in the accident
analyses is unchanged.
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the TS is not
reduced and the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 8199]]
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, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 25, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
change selected atmospheric relative concentration values for use in
control room radiological dose analyses.
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 proposed amendment submits [atmosphere relative
concentration values] x/Qs that were accurately calculated and in
conformance with NRC guidance. Meteorological inputs that were
previously submitted to the NRC and used to calculate these X/Qs
were not revised or updated nor has any of the dose release points
changed. Accident mitigation procedures and controls are in no way
affected by this amendment. Duke Energy has also ensured that the
control room doses determined with these re-calculated X/Qs are
within the 10 CFR 50.67 AST limits.
As such, 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.
This proposed amendment is analytical in nature. It does not
involve a plant modification or a change in how the plant is
operated. No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result
of this proposed amendment. No changes are being made to any
structure, system, or component which will introduce any new
accident causal mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact
any plant systems that are accident initiators and does not impact
any safety analysis.
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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following accident conditions. These barriers include the
fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed re-calculation of the X/Qs will have no affect
on the performance of these barriers. This proposed amendment does
not involve an addition or modification to any plant system,
structure, or component. This proposed amendment will not affect the
post accident operation of any plant system, structure, or component
as directed in plant procedures.
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, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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: September 14, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated December 17, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Standby Service Water (SSW) Passive Failure Methodology as
described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to be
consistent with SECY-77-439, ``NRC Information Paper on Single Failure
Criterion,'' dated August 1, 1977. In this SECY paper, the NRC stated
that credible passive SSW failures that result in a loss-of-fluid in
post-accident scenarios, can be limited to pump or valve seal leakage.
In a UFSAR change made in 1987 under 10 CFR 50.59, the licensee adopted
this language, but during a recent NRC Component and Design Basis
Inspection, the NRC staff concluded that such a change requires NRC
staff review and approval and, therefore, the licensee has proposed
this amendment.
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.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) proposes the utilization of
limited size breaks (through-wall leakage cracks) in the analysis of
passive failures of Standby Service Water (SSW) piping during the
post-LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] phase of an accident.
Postulating passive pipe ruptures and heat exchanger tube ruptures,
and pipe fitting (tee, elbow, reducer, etc) ruptures in the SSW
piping is overly conservative. SECY 77-439 underscores the fact that
the probability of failure of the service water piping during the
critical 24-hour period after a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) is
so low that it does not constitute a credible event.
Additionally, crack locations and sizes postulated under the
guidance of Standard Review Plan (SRP) (NUREG 0800) Sections 3.6.1
and 3.6.2 are applicable and bounding in terms of the consideration
of passive failures as addressed in SECY 77-439, and are thus
applicable to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station pipe failure analysis.
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 UFSAR
changes demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is
not significantly affected because of the adoption of revised
methodology for postulating single phase failures of the Standby
Service Water (SSW) to be consistent with NRC guidance published in
References 2 and 3 [of the licensee's letter dated December 17,
2012].
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 UFSAR change allows GGNS to be consistent with NRC
guidance published in References 2 and 3 [of the licensee's letter
dated December 17, 2012] which state that credible passive SSW
failures that can result in a loss of fluid post-accident are
limited to pump or valve seal leakage, not ruptures of SSW system
piping. The proposed UFSAR change does not introduce any failure
mechanisms of a different type than those previously evaluated,
since there are no physical changes being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed
equipment is being
[[Page 8200]]
operated in a different manner. As a result, no new failure modes
are being introduced. The way surveillance tests are performed
remains unchanged.
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 revision of the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) to describe the use of revised methodology for
postulating single phase failures of the Standby Service Water (SSW)
to be consistent with NRC guidance published in References 2 and 3
[of the licensee's letter dated December 17, 2012] which state that
credible passive SSW failures that can result in a loss of fluid
post-accident are limited to pump or valve seal leakage, not
ruptures of SSW system piping. The impact of the change on system
availability is not significant, based on the frequency of the
testing being unchanged, the existence of redundant systems and
equipment, and overall system reliability. The proposed change does
not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures,
systems, and components relied upon for accident mitigation. The
proposed change does not result in any hardware changes or in any
changes to the analytical limits assumed in accident analyses.
Existing operating margin between plant conditions and actual plant
setpoints is not significantly reduced due to these changes. The
proposed change does not 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.
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: November 9, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to support the correction of
a non-conservative TS allowable value in TS Table 3.3.6.1-1,
``Allowable Value for Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation
Instrumentation,'' Function 3.c, ``Reactor Core Isolation Cooling
(RCIC) Steam Supply Line Pressure--Low.'' This TS allowable value will
be changed from greater than or equal to 53 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig) to greater than or equal to 57 psig.
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 TS allowable value change involves a change in the
margin between the allowable value and the setpoint. The proposed TS
change does not change the trip setpoint. The proposed TS change
does not degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to,
any safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. The
proposed TS change does not 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
[sic] trip setpoint for the associated TRM function is not
considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a
revision to the allowable value 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 the reduction in margin between
the allowable value and the trip setpoint.
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 TS change involves a change in the allowable value
setting to correct a non-conservative value. The proposed TS change
does not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than
those previously evaluated, since there are no physical changes
being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed
equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no
new failure modes are being introduced. The way surveillance tests
are performed remains unchanged.
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 change involves a change in the allowable value
setting to correct a non-conservative value. The impact of the
change on system availability is not significant, based on the
frequency of the testing being unchanged, the existence of redundant
systems and equipment, and overall system reliability. The proposed
change does not significantly impact the condition or performance of
structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident
mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any hardware
changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed in
accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant
conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced
due to these changes. The proposed change does not 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.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure
Protection (LTOP) System,'' to reflect the mass input transient
analysis that assumes an emergency core cooling system centrifugal
charging pump and the normal charging pump capable of injecting into
the reactor coolant system during the TS 3.4.12 Applicability.
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 8201]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 3.4.12 to allow an ECCS
[emergency core cooling system] CCP [centrifugal charging pump] and
the NCP [normal charging pump] to be capable of injecting into the
RCS [reactor coolant system] during low RCS pressures and
temperatures. The Limiting Condition for Operation provides RCS
overpressure protection by having a minimum coolant input capability
and have adequate pressure relief capability. Analyses have
demonstrated that one power operated relief valve (PORV) or one
residual heat removal (RHR) suction relief valve or an RCS vent of
at least 2.0 square inches is capable of limiting the RCS pressure
excursions below the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G limits for the
design basis LTOP limits.
The NRC has previously evaluated the allowance for an ECCS CCP
and the NCP being capable of injecting into the RCS during the TS
3.4.12 Mode of Applicability. In the safety evaluation dated
December 7, 1999 related to Wolf Creek Generation Station, Unit 1,
Amendment No. 130, the NRC concluded:
The operability of two PORVs or two RHR suction relief valves or
an RCS vent opening of at least 2 square inches ensure adequate flow
capacity to protect the RCS from overpressurization from either (1)
the start of a centrifugal charging pump and/or the normal charging
pump injecting into the RCS, or (2) the start of the idle RCP
[reactor coolant pump] with the secondary water temperature of the
steam generator less than or equal to 50 [deg]F above the RCS cold
leg temperature.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSC) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types
and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite,
nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/
public radiation exposure.
Therefore, the proposed change does not represent 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 revises TS 3.4.12 to allow an ECCS CCP and
the NCP to be capable of injecting into the RCS during low RCS
pressures and temperatures. The Limiting Condition for Operation
provides RCS overpressure protection by having a minimum coolant
input capability and have adequate pressure relief capability.
Analyses have demonstrated that one power operated relief valve
(PORV) or one residual heat removal (RHR) suction relief valve or an
RCS vent of at least 2.0 square inches is capable of limiting the
RCS pressure excursions below the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G limits
for the design basis LTOP limits.
The proposed change will not physically alter the plant (no new
or different type of equipment will be installed) or change the
methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does
not introduce new accident initiators or impact assumptions made in
the safety analysis. Testing requirements continue to demonstrate
that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are functional.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not impacted by this change. The proposed change will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
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 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].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2012, as supplemented by letter
dated August 28, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment revised
the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 Technical Specification
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''; however,
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. is proposing minor variations and
deviations from TSTF-510.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2013.
[[Page 8202]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 256.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 429, 2012 (77
FR 53927).
The supplemental letter contains clarifying information, did not
change the scope of the license amendment request, did not change the
NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards
consideration determination, and did not expand the scope of the
original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable snubbers by
adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The amendments
also made conforming changes to TS LCO 3.0.1 to reference TS LCO 3.0.8.
The proposed changes are 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).
Date of issuance: January 22, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 285 and 288.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR
60150).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 22, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-02352 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P