[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31978-31985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12424]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0105]
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 (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 May 2, 2013 to May 15, 2013. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 14, 2013 (78 FR 28248).
[[Page 31979]]
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0105. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
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-2013-0105 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-2013-0105.
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-2013-0105 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 you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering 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 ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' 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
[[Page 31980]]
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-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
[[Page 31981]]
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.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. 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].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, the licensee, Docket Nos. 50-
317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendments request: January 28, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated April 1, 2013.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would revise
several Technical Specification (TS) to eliminate the second completion
time by adopting TS Task Force (TSTF)-439-A, Revision 2, ``Eliminate
Second Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet
an LCO [limiting condition for operation].''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change proposed by incorporating TSTF-439-A, Revision 2,
eliminates certain Completion Times from the [TSs]. Completion Times
are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not
affected. The consequences of an accident during the revised
Completion Times are no different than the consequences of the same
accident during the existing Completion Times. As a result, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not affected by
this change. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, systems, or components from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed change to modify certain Completion Times does not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change
does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that
may be released offsite, nor significantly increase the cumulative
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant
consequences.
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.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in
the 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time and the
related example of second Completion Times does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or [LCOs]
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside of the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steven L. Miller, General Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC., 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200c, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Sean Meighan.
[[Page 31982]]
Carolina Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-325, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 1, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North
Carolina
Carolina Power & Light Company, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 20, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
the corporate name of the licensee in each facility's operating license
from Carolina Power & Light Company to Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
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?
The proposed amendments involve a change of the corporate name
of Carolina Power & Light Company to Duke Energy Progress, Inc. The
proposed amendments do not involve any change in the technical
qualifications of the licensee or the plant's design, configuration,
or operation. All Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety
System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the Technical
Specifications remain unchanged. Also, the physical security plan
and related plans, the operator training and requalification
program, the quality assurance program, and the emergency plan will
not be materially changed by the proposed corporate name change. The
corporate name change amendments will not affect the executive
oversight provided by the Chief Nuclear Officer and his staff.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve any increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
analyzed.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
The proposed amendments do not involve any change in the plant's
design, configuration, or operation. The current plant design,
design bases, and plant safety analysis will remain the same.
The Limiting Conditions for Operations, Limiting Safety System
Settings, and Safety Limits specified in the Technical
Specifications are not affected by the proposed corporate name
change. As such, the plant conditions for which the design basis
accident analysis was performed remain valid.
The proposed amendments do not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or new accident precursors, do not involve any physical
alterations to the plant's configuration, or make changes to system
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do 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
the margin of safety?
The proposed amendments do not involve a change in the plant's
design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendments affect
neither the way in which the plant's structures, systems, and
components perform their safety function nor its design and
licensing bases.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions
for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits
specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no
change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to
any of these margins.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C
DEC45A, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-250, Turkey Point
Nuclear Plant, Unit 3, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March 8, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request
proposes a one-time (temporary) extension of Technical Specification
(TS) Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.1.d involving an operability
demonstration of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) accumulator check
valves. The requested surveillance extension will allow 2 months more
than the currently specified refueling outage interval of 18 months
plus 4.5-month grace period and facilitate the plant's ability to
optimize fuel burn-up during the current operating cycle.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The requested action is a one-time extension to the performance
interval of one TS surveillance requirement. The performance of the
surveillance, or the failure to perform the surveillance, is not a
precursor to an accident. Performing the surveillance or failing to
perform the surveillances does not affect the probability of an
accident. Therefore, the proposed delays in performance of the
surveillance requirement in this amendment request does not increase
the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
A delay in performing the surveillance does not result in a
system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of
this one-time extension request, the relatively short period of
additional time that the system and components will be in service
before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the
ability of the system to operate as designed noting that no time-
dependent failure modes have been identified for the subject check
valves.
The ECCS accumulators will remain capable of performing their
required safety function. No new failure modes have been introduced
because of this action, and the consequences remain consistent with
previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the proposed delay in the
performance of the surveillance requirement in this amendment
request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences
of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any
SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation
of any SSC in a manner or configuration different from those
previously recognized or evaluated. The subject check valves do not
have any time-dependent failure modes and no new failure mechanisms
will be introduced by the one-time surveillance extension being
requested.
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.
The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the
performance interval for one TS surveillance requirement. Extending
the surveillance requirement does not involve a modification of any
TS Limiting Condition for Operation. Extending the surveillance
frequency does not involve a change to any limit on accident
consequences specified in
[[Page 31983]]
the license or regulations. Extending the surveillance frequency
does not involve a change to how accidents are mitigated or a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending
the surveillance frequency does not involve a change in a
methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending
the surveillance frequency does not involve a change in any
operating procedure or process.
The components involved in this request have exhibited reliable
operation based on the results of past 18-month surveillance tests
over the last six refueling outages. Based on the limited additional
period of time that the systems and components will be in service
before the surveillances are next performed, as well as the
operating experience that indicates this surveillance has been
successful when performed, it is reasonable to conclude that any
margin of safety associated with the surveillance requirement will
not be affected by the requested extension.
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: James Petro, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida
33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2013
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the Technical Specifications (TS) definition of ``Shutdown
Margin'' (SDM) to adopt TSTF-535, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition
to Address Advanced Fuel Designs'', which would require calculation of
the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68[deg]F or a higher
temperature that represents the most reactive state throughout the
operating cycle.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types
at all times during the fuel cycle.
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. James Petro, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach,
FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 2, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise related Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements
(SRs) for snubbers to conform to planned revisions of the snubber
inservice inspection (ISI) program.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would revise SR 4.7.7 to conform the TS to
the revised ISI program for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing
and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubber examination, testing and service life
monitoring is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is
not significantly increased. Snubbers will continue to be
demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination,
testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a
or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.7
for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required
for consistency with the proposed change to SR 4.7.7. The proposed
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and
components to perform their design functions.
Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated
are not significantly increased. Based on the above, this change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and
service life monitoring will continue to meet the
[[Page 31984]]
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be
demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination,
testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a
or authorized alternatives. The proposed change to TS ACTION 3.7.7
for inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required
for consistency with the proposed change to SR 4.7.7.
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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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: March 13, 2013.
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 by departing from the plant-specific
design control document Tier 2* material by revising reference document
APP-OCS-GEH-320, ``AP1000 Human Factors Engineering Integrated System
Validation Plan'' from Revision D to Revision 2. APP-OCS-GEH-320 is
incorporated by reference in the updated final safety analysis report
(UFSAR) as a means to implement the activities associated with the
human factors engineering verification and validation.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Integrated System Validation (ISV) provides a comprehensive
human performance-based assessment of the design of the AP1000
Human-System Interface (HSI) resources, based on their realistic
operation within a simulator-driven Main Control Room (MCR). The ISV
is part of the overall AP1000 Human Factors Engineering (HFE)
program. The changes are to the ISV Plan to clarify the scope and
amend the details of the methodology. The ISV Plan is needed to
perform, in the simulator, the scenarios described in the document.
The functions and tasks allocated to plant personnel can still be
accomplished after the proposed changes. The performance of the
tests governed by the ISV Plan provides additional assurances that
the operators can appropriately respond to plant transients. The ISV
Plan does not affect the plant itself. Changing the ISV Plan does
not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g.,
accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods
and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No safety-
related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely
affected. The changes do not involve nor interface with any SSC
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the 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 UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, there is no significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The changes to the ISV Plan affect the testing and validation of
the Main Control Room and Human System Interface using a plant
simulator. Therefore, the changes do not affect the safety-related
equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed,
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product
barrier. No analysis is adversely affected. No system or design
function or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by
the changes. This activity will not allow for a new fission product
release path, nor will it result in a new fission product barrier
failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result
in significant fuel cladding failures. In addition, the changes do
not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events
that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, this activity does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident than any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes to the ISV Plan affect the testing and validation of
the Main Control Room and Human System Interface using a plant
simulator. Therefore, the changes do not affect the assessments or
the plant itself. These changes do not affect safety-related
equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an accident, nor
does it adversely interface with safety-related equipment or fission
product barriers. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change.
Therefore, there is no 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 Acting Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.
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
[[Page 31985]]
(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].
Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of application for amendment: November 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises surveillance
requirements (SRs) which currently require operating the ventilation
system for at least 10 continuous hours with the heaters operating
every 31 days for SR 3.6.4.3.1 and 31 days on a staggered test basis
for SR 3.7.3.1. The SRs would be changed to require at least 15
continuous minutes of ventilation system operation every 31 days and
include technical specification (TS) bases changes that summarize and
clarify the purpose of the TS in accordance with TS Task Force Traveler
(TSTF) 522, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to
operate for 10 Hours per Month.''
Date of issuance: May 13, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 192.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 22, 2013 (78 FR
4471).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 13, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: September 5, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify PNPP's Technical Specifications (TS) Table 3.3.5.1-1,
``Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Instrumentation,'' footnote (a)
to require ECCS instrumentation to be operable only when the associated
ECCS subsystems are required to be operable. This proposed change is
consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved TS Task
Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-275-A, Revision 0.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would add exceptions to the
diesel generator (DG) surveillance requirements (SRs) for TS 3.8.2,
``AC Sources--Shutdown,'' to eliminate the requirement that the DG be
capable of responding to ECCS initiation signals while the ECCS
subsystems are not required to be operable. This proposed change is
consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-300-A, Revision 0.
Date of issuance: May 6, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 163.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 8, 2013 (78 FR
1270).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2,
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendments: August 11, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated February 21, 2012, July 9, 2012, October
4, 2012, February 8, 2013, and April 30, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the PINGP
licensing basis to address plant capability related to the diesel fuel
oil supplies during a design basis accident with a loss of offsite
power and a single failure. The amendments also revise the technical
specification (TS) fuel oil storage volume requirements to reflect the
new licensing basis, resolve non-conservative emergency diesel
generator fuel oil supply volumes, incorporate portions of Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler 501, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and
Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control,'' and make other
administrative changes to the TSs.
Date of issuance: May 9, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 207 and 194.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60:
Amendments revised the Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 13, 2011 (76
FR 77568).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information and did
not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of May 2013.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-12424 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P