[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64541-64553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25394]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2013-0233]
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 to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from September 19, 2013, to October 2, 2013. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60321).
Due to the Federal Government shutdown, there was no biweekly
publication on October 15, 2013.
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-2013-0233. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; 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: 3WFN, 06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
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-2013-0233 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this action by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2013-0233.
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-2013-0233 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
[[Page 64542]]
(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
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's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic
[[Page 64543]]
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 to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
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)-(iii).
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].
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket Nos. 50-409 and 72-046, La Crosse
Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR), La Crosse County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: August 6, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the LACBWR Emergency Plan. Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC)
proposes removal of the various emergency actions related to the former
spent fuel pool, the transfer of responsibility for implementing the
Emergency Plan to the Security Shift Supervisors at the Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), a revised emergency plan
organization, removal of the fire brigade, and abandonment of the
Control Room consistent with the current state of decommissioning.
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.
DPC has in effect an NRC-approved E-Plan. There are no longer
credible events that would result in doses to the public beyond
[[Page 64544]]
the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs.
LACBWR was shutdown 25 years ago. Emergency Planning Zones beyond
the owner controlled area and the associated protective actions are
no longer required. No headquarters personnel, personnel involved in
off-site dose projections, or personnel with special qualifications
are required to augment the LACBWR Emergency Response Organization.
The credible events for the ISFSI remain unchanged. The indications
of damage to a loaded cask confinement boundary have been revised to
be twice the technical specification limit for contact dose. This
change is consistent with industry practices previously approved by
the NRC for other ISFSIs to be able to distinguish that a degraded
condition exists.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
DPC has in effect an NRC-approved E-Plan. There are no longer
credible events that would result in doses to the public beyond the
owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs.
LACBWR was shutdown 25 years ago. Emergency Planning Zones beyond
the owner controlled area and the associated protective actions are
no longer required. No headquarters personnel, personnel involved in
off-site dose projections, or personnel with special qualifications
are required to augment the LACBWR Emergency Response Organization.
The advanced state of decommissioning is reflected in the updated
and revised ODCM [Offsite Dose Calculation Manual] which shows that
there are no longer any events at the former plant that could exceed
the EPA PAGs for dose to a member of the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary
containment) to perform their design functions during and following
postulated accidents. DPC has in effect an NRC-approved E-Plan.
There are no longer credible events that would result in doses to
the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would
exceed the EPA PAGs. LACBWR was shutdown 25 years ago. Emergency
Planning Zones beyond the owner controlled area and the associated
protective actions are no longer required. No headquarters
personnel, personnel involved in offsite dose projections, or
personnel with special qualifications are required to augment the
LACBWR Emergency Response Organization. The advanced state of
decommissioning is reflected in the updated and revised ODCM which
shows that there are no longer any events at the former plant that
could exceed the EPA PAGs for dose to a member of the public.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in 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. Thomas Zaremba, Wheeler, Van Sickle and
Anderson, Suite 801, 25 West Main Street, Madison, WI 53703-3398.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: July 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Control Room Air
Conditioning (AC) System,'' requirements by revising the Required
Action and associated Completion Time for two inoperable control room
air conditioning subsystems. The proposed changes are consistent with
NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-477, Revision 3.
The availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal
Register on March 26, 2007 (72 FR 14143), as part of the consolidated
line item improvement process (CLIIP).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), Energy Northwest
affirmed the applicability of the proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination published in the Federal Register as
part of the CLlIP (71 FR 75774; December 18, 2006), which is presented
below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change is described in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-477 adds an action
statement for two inoperable control room subsystems.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed changes add an action statement for two inoperable
control room subsystems. The equipment qualification temperature of
the control room equipment is not affected. Future changes to the
Bases or licensee-controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments,''
to ensure that such changes do not result in more than a minimal
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do 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 changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
The proposed changes add an action statement for two inoperable
control room subsystems. The changes do not involve a physical
altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant
operation. The requirements in the TS continue to require
maintaining the control room temperature within the design limits.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed changes add an action statement for two inoperable
control room subsystems. Instituting the proposed changes will
continue to maintain the control room temperature within design
limits. Changes to the Bases or license controlled document are
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an
effective level of regulatory control and ensures that the control
room temperature will be maintained within design limits.
The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve
the current margins of safety.
Based upon the reasoning above, the NRC staff concludes that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
[[Page 64545]]
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC., Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois; Exelon Generation
Company, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power
Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois; Exelon Generation
Company, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County
Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois; Exelon Generation
Company, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; Exelon
Generation Company, LLC., et al., Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey; Exelon
Generation Company, LLC., and PSEG Nuclear LLC., Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania; Exelon Generation Company,
LLC., Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: August 2, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin''
(SDM) to 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. This change is
needed to address new Boiling Water Reactor fuel designs that may be
more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68[deg]F.
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:
EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] has evaluated whether or
not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the
proposed amendments by focusing on the three standards set forth in
10 CFR 50.92, ``Issuance of amendment,'' as discussed 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 of 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 of
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.
Based on the above, EGC concludes that the proposed change
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: June 4, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request
proposes to revise the technical specifications (TS) to allow the use
of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel rod cladding material. The proposed change
would revise TS 5.3.1 to add Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ to the approved fuel
rod cladding materials and TS 6.9.1.7 to add Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-
A, ``Optimized ZIRLO\TM\,'' to the analytical methods used to determine
the core operating limits.
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 would allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\
clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC approved topical report
WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
(Westinghouse), which addresses Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ and demonstrates
that Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ has essentially the same properties as
currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg]. The fuel cladding itself is not an
accident initiator and does not affect accident probability. Use of
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel cladding will continue to meet all 10 CFR
50.46 acceptance criteria and, therefore, will not increase the
consequences of an accident.
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.
Use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ clad fuel will not result in changes
in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical Report
WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\,'' demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ are similar to those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore,
Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to the
cladding fabricated from standard ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the
possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a
new or different type of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ are not significantly
different from those of standard ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLO\TM\
is expected to perform similarly to standard ZIRLO[supreg] for all
normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss of
coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA
[[Page 64546]]
scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, the slight difference in Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ material properties relative to standard ZIRLO\TM\ could
have some impact on the overall accident scenario. However, all
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 are satisfied, 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Senior Attorney, NextEra
Energy Point Beach, LLC, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
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 amendments request: February 7, 2013, and revised on July
19, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by
departing from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1
(and corresponding Combined License Appendix C information) and Tier 2
material by reconciling various valve descriptions and definitions in
Tier 1 and Tier 2. This is being done to promote consistency within the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee
also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD
Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in any physical changes to
the plant, and therefore do not change any safety-related design
requirement, qualification requirement or function. The proposed
changes do not involve any accident initiating event or component
failure, thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not affect the
radioactive material releases used in the accident analyses, thus,
the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
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 changes do not result in any physical changes to
the plant, and therefore do not adversely affect any structure,
system or component. No safety-related equipment qualification or
design function is affected. The proposed changes do not introduce a
new failure mode or create a new fault or sequence of events that
could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in any physical changes to
the plant, and therefore do not change valve performance, including
containment isolation. No safety acceptance criterion would be
exceeded or challenged. No safety-related function would be
affected. Valve qualification would not be affected. The proposed
changes do not affect compliance with existing design codes and
regulatory criteria and do not affect any safety analysis.
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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: July 23, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Fire Protection Program (FPP)
(incorporated in to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report by
reference) related to the alternate shutdown capability in accordance
with license condition 2.E of the Facility Operating Licenses.
Specifically, STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) proposes to credit
the following manual operator actions in the control room prior to
evacuation due to a fire for meeting the alternate shutdown capability,
in addition to manually tripping the reactor that is currently credited
in the STP, Units 1 and 2, FPP licensing basis:
Initiate main steam line isolation
Closing the pressurizer power-operated relief valves block
valves
Securing all reactor coolant pumps
Closing feedwater isolation valves
Securing the startup feedwater pump
Isolating reactor coolant system (RCS) letdown
Securing the centrifugal charging pumps
In addition, STPNOC proposes to credit the automatic trip of the
main turbine upon the initiation of a manual reactor trip for meeting
the alternate shutdown capability. A thermal-hydraulic analysis
demonstrates that these operations will ensure that the RCS process
variables remain within those values predicted for a loss of normal
alternating current (a-c) power, as required by Section III.L.1 of 10
CFR part 50, appendix R.
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 credits operations in the control room prior
to evacuation in the event of a fire in order to meet safe shutdown
performance criteria. The design function of structures, systems and
components (SSC) are not impacted by the proposed change. The
proposed change will not initiate an event. The proposed change does
not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event. The proposed change does not increase the probability of
occurrence of a fire or any other accident previously evaluated.
The proposed operations are feasible and reliable and
demonstrate that the unit can be safely [shut down] in the event of
a fire with no significant increase in consequences.
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
[[Page 64547]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change credits operations in the control room prior
to evacuation in the event of a fire in order to meet safe shutdown
performance criteria. The proposed change does not install or remove
any plant equipment. The proposed change does not alter the design,
physical configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure,
system or component. Therefore, the proposed change does not
introduce any new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can
initiate an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change credits operations in the control room prior
to evacuation in the event of a fire in order to meet safe shutdown
performance criteria. The proposed change has no effect on the
availability, operability, or performance of 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 structure, system or component to
perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed
change.
Thermal-hydraulic analyses demonstrate that the proposed
operations to be performed in the control room will ensure that the
reactor coolant system process variables remain within those values
predicted for a loss of normal a-c power, as required by section
III.L of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R. After control of the plant is
achieved by the alternative shutdown system, the plant can be safely
transitioned to cold shutdown conditions. A single fire-induced
spurious actuation will not negate the proposed operations.
Considerable fire protection defense-in-depth features exist
such that it is unlikely that a fire in the control room would
result in evacuation. In the remote likelihood that control room
evacuation is required and none of the proposed operator actions
other than the manual reactor trip and automatic turbine trip are
performed prior to arrival at the alternative shutdown stations,
analyses confirm that adequate core cooling is maintained so that
fuel cladding integrity is not challenged. The capability to achieve
and maintain safe shutdown is maintained.
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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: A. H. Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: August 1, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) for the Alternating Current Sources Operating in LCO 3.8.1,
provide additional time to restore an inoperable offsite circuit,
modify Surveillance Requirement 3.8.1.8, and modify the current
licensing basis, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR), for the available maintenance feeder for the Common
Station Service Transformers (CSSTs) A and B. The proposed license
amendment request credits upgrades made to CSST A and B to provide two
new sources of preferred Class 1 E power supply feeds in addition to
the two normal Class 1 E power supply feeds. The TS change is needed to
support dual unit operations without requiring a dual unit shutdown
during maintenance on either preferred power CSST C or D. This proposed
request also achieves licensing basis commonality for the current
Operating WBN Unit 1 license with respect to those approved elements of
the WBN Unit 2 application as docketed in NUREG-0847, Supplements 22
and 24.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes described in this TS amendment request, do
not alter the safety functions of the WBN Offsite Power system.
Design calculations document that CSSTs A and B have adequate
capacity to supply all connected loads including one train of
shutdown boards in all allowable alignments and meet the separation
requirements for offsite power sources. The consequences of an
accident are not changed when using CSST A or B to power the
shutdown boards because these CSSTs are rated to carry all required
loads for any design basis accidents. The failure of a CSST is not
considered to be an initiator of a plant accident and therefore the
probability or consequences of accidents or events previously
evaluated, as described in the UFSAR, is not changed.
Therefore, this proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
As stated above, malfunctions of the CSSTs are not considered to
be an initiator for plant accidents and the modifications to the
offsite power system do not create a new or different kind of
accident. The purpose of the offsite power system is to provide a
source of power to the safety related equipment required to mitigate
a design basis accident. CSSTs A and B have been physically upgraded
and proven by design calculation to meet all required GDC [General
Design Criterion] 17 requirements for separation and voltage
stability. Using CSSTs A and B as alternate sources of shutdown
power does not negatively affect the offsite power systems ability
to meet its design function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
CSSTs A and B have adequate design margin to meet all possible
loading scenarios as long as both CSSTs A and B are operational
prior to one being used as a source of offsite power. This
requirement is added to the control room drawings, plant design
criteria and the UFSAR in order to ensure acceptable margin is
always available prior to CSSTs A or B being used as a source of
offsite power.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna
Power Station, Unit 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession
No. ML13260A256) requests the changes to the Technical Specification
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-Operating.'' TS 3.8.1 contains Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8, which requires verification of the
[[Page 64548]]
capability to manually transfer Unit 1, 4.16 kV ESF bus AC power
sources from the normal offsite circuit to the alternate required
offsite circuit and this surveillance is only applicable to Unit 1.
Dominion is developing a plant modification to install an alternate
offsite power feed to each of the two 4.16 kV ESF buses for Unit 2,
such that it will be similar to the Unit 1 design. Therefore, the
proposed change would delete Note 1 to SR 3.8.1.8 to remove the
limitation that excludes Unit 2 and will be consistent with the
verification currently performed for Unit 1.
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 previously evaluated accident that could be affected is a
complete loss of offsite power (LOOP). Analyses have been performed
to confirm that power distribution system voltages and currents with
both of the new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency bus ties in
service are adequate during a unit trip scenario. The conditions
under which the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is verified are
the same as Unit 1. The verification test may only be performed
under conditions that will not challenge steady state operation or
challenge the safety of the unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification
test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal offsite circuit and
alternate required offsite circuit) will not significantly increase
the probability of a LOOP.
Should a LOOP occur, the consequences are unaffected by
availability of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and alternate
required offsite circuit). Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test
(normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will
not affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The purpose of the surveillance test is to verify the capability
to manually transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite
circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit.
The only effect of the change is to permit the new Unit 2
required offsite circuits to be tested in the same manner and
frequency as the corresponding Unit 1 circuits. Since the Unit 2
circuits are similar to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is
a required TS Surveillance to demonstrate operability of the
alternate offsite circuits, permitting the Unit 2 circuits to
undergo the same surveillance test will 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 enables SR testing of the new Unit 2
alternate offsite AC circuits to verify the capability to manually
transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the
alternate required offsite circuit as is performed in Unit 1.
The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident situation and the ability of the
ECCS to provide adequate core cooling. These barriers include the
fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers,
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the Class 1E circuits or
SSCs supplied by Class 1E power. In fact, it enhances the ability to
power the required ECCS equipment during accident conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: August 12, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments revise
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 4.4.B,
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Requirements,'' by replacing the
reference to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163 with a reference to Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, as the
implementation document used to develop the Surry performance-based
leakage testing program in accordance with Option B of 10 CFR part 50,
appendix J.
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 amendment involves changes to the Surry Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program. The proposed amendment does not
involve a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in
which the plant is operated or controlled. The primary containment
function is to provide an essentially leak-tight barrier against the
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself and the
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment do not involve any accident precursors or
initiators. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A, for development of the Surry Power Station
Units 1 and 2 performance-based containment testing program.
Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate
assurance that during design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components will limit leakage rates to less than
the values assumed in the plant safety analyses. The potential
consequences of extending the ILRT interval to 15 years have been
evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes in risk. The increase
in risk in terms of person-rem per year within 50 miles resulting
from design basis accidents was estimated to be acceptably small and
determined to be within the guidelines published in, RG 1.174.
Additionally, the proposed change maintains defense-in-depth by
preserving a reasonable balance among prevention of core damage,
prevention of containment failure, and consequence mitigation.
Dominion has determined that the increase in Conditional Containment
Failure Probability due to the proposed change would be very small.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that 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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A, for the development of the Surry performance-
based leakage testing program and establishes a 15-year interval for
the performance of the containment ILRT. The containment and the
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident and do not involve any accident
precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a
physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) and does not
[[Page 64549]]
change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A, for the development of the Surry performance-
based leakage testing program and establishes a 15-year interval for
the performance of the containment ILRT. This amendment does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program, as defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of
primary containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is
considered in the plant's safety analysis is maintained. The overall
containment leakage rate limit specified by the TS is maintained,
and the Type A, Type B, and Type C containment leakage tests will be
performed at the frequencies established in accordance with the NRC-
accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Containment
inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment will not
degrade in a manner that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk
assessment using the current Surry PRA model concluded that
extending the ILRT test interval from ten years to 15 years results
in a very small change to the Surry risk profile.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, Dominion concludes that the proposed
amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding
of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC., Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: September 25, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated June 12, and August 8, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise selected
atmospheric relative concentration values ([chi]/Q) for use in Control
Room radiological dose analysis that were withdrawn during McGuire's
request for full scope implementation of the Alternate Source Term
(AST). The licensee withdrew the release points due to the source-to-
receptor distances being less than 10 meters and needing to be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. McGuire received NRC's approval for
full scope implementation of AST on March 31, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090890627). The purpose of this amendment is for the NRC to review
and approve the licensee's withdrawn [chi]/Q values on a case-by-case
basis. The licensee will make the necessary changes to the updated
final safety analysis report (UFSAR) in accordance with 10 CFR
50.71(e).
Date of issuance: September 23, 2013.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 271 and 251.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and UFSAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2013 (78 FR
8199). The supplements dated June 12, and August 8, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 23, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendment: September 9, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated September 8, and November 23, 2010; March
9, April 21, May 3, and November 21, 2011; April 18, October 1, and
October 22, 2012; and July 2, September 5, and September 16, 2013. The
letters dated September 8, and November 23, 2010, and March 9, April
21, and May 3, 2011, are incorporated by reference in the September 2,
2011, license amendment request (LAR) as allowed by 10 CFR 50.32,
``Elimination of replication.''
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves: 1)
additional requirements for the spent fuel and new fuel storage racks
in TS 4.3.1,
[[Page 64550]]
``Criticality''; 2) a revision to the current Nuclear Criticality
Safety Analysis, which is described in the GGNS Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report Sections 9.1.1, ``New Fuel Storage,'' and 9.1.2,
``Spent Fuel Storage,'' to reflect changes resulting from the extended
power uprate; and 3) deletion of the spent fuel pool loading criteria
Operating License condition.
Date of issuance: September 25, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 195.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 24, 2012 (77 FR
3511). The supplemental letters dated September 8, and November 23,
2010; March 9, April 21, May 3, and November 21, 2011; April 18,
October 1, and October 22, 2012; and July 2, September 5, and September
16, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendment: September 14, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated December 17, 2012, and July 29, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the
methodology in the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (USFAR) for postulating single passive failures of the
Standby Service Water (SSW) system following a loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA). The revised methodology considers a limited size piping break
in the SSW system during the first 24 hours following a LOCA, and
consider only pump and valve seal leakage after more than 24 hours. The
licensee will include the revised information in the UFSAR in the next
periodic update in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e).
Date of issuance: September 25, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 196.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and the UFSAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2013 (78 FR
8199). The supplemental letter dated July 29, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-315, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: October 7, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated October 8, and October 9, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.9, ``Distributed Ignition System (DIS),'' to
allow Train B of the DIS to be considered operable with two inoperable
ignitors. The existing TS defines train operability as having no more
than one ignitor inoperable. The amendment also allows one of five
specific primary containment regions to have zero ignitors operable.
The existing TS requires that at least one ignitor be operable in each
region. The proposed TS revision is applicable until the fall 2014
refueling outage, or until the unit enters a mode that allows
replacement of the affected ignitors without exposing personnel to
significant radiation and safety hazards.
Date of issuance: October 9, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 1 day.
Amendment No.: 321.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-58: Amendment revises
the Technical Specifications and License.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated October 9,
2013.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Luminant Generation Company LLC., Docket Nos. 50-445, and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated May 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--
Operating,'' to revise the Completion Time (CT) for Required Action
A.3, ``Restore required offsite circuit to OPERABLE status,'' on a one-
time basis from 72 hours to 14 days for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power
Plant, Units 1 and 2. The CT extension from 72 hours to 14 days will be
used twice while completing the plant modification to install alternate
startup transformer (ST) XST1A and will expire on March 31, 2014. After
completion of this modification, if ST XST1 should require maintenance
or if failure occurs, the alternate ST XST1A can be aligned to the
Class 1E buses well within the current CT of 72 hours. Installation of
alternate ST will result in improved plant design and will improve the
long-term reliability of the 138 kiloVolt offsite circuit ST.
Date of issuance: September 18, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--160; Unit 2--160.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR
14131). The supplemental letter dated May 16, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 64551]]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50-
184, Center for Neutron Research (NBSR), Montgomery County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2012, as supplemented on May
14, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendments would
revise NIST NBSR's Technical Specifications, Sections 3.7, 4.7, and
6.8, pertaining to the environmental monitoring requirements and
records retention which clarifies environmental sampling procedure and
record retention processes.
Date of issuance: September 24, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 9.
Facility Operating License No. TR-5: Amendment revised the Renewed
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR
38083). The supplemental letter dated May 14, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 24, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC., Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of application for amendment: November 13, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the DAEC
renewed facility operating license condition (RFOLC) C.12 to: (1)
Clarify that the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR)
supplement had been supplemented by Appendix A of NUREG-1955, ``Safety
Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Duane Arnold Energy
Center,'' dated November 2010, as supplemented by letter from the
licensee to the NRC dated November 23, 2010,'' (2) replace ``future
activities to be completed prior to and/or during'' with ``programs to
be implemented and activities to be completed before,'' (3) included
the requirement to implement new programs and enhancements to existing
programs no later than February 21, 2014, (4) include the requirement
to complete activities no later than February 21, 2014, and (5) include
the requirement to notify the NRC within 30 days of having completed
the activities. Date of issuance: October 7, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 287.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or
requirements and changes the format of the license or otherwise makes
editorial, corrective or other minor revisions.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 16, 2013 (78 FR
22571). The supplemental information dated May 28, 2013, and October
1st, 2013, contained clarifying information, did not change the scope
of the November 13, 2012, application on the initial no significant
hazards consideration determination, and does 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 October 7, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 24, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes the
licensee to revise Appendix B, ``Technical Specifications'' of Combined
Licenses NPF-91 and NPF-92 in order to improve operator usability by
more closely aligning with the form and content of Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Writer's Guide for Plant-Specific
Improved Technical Specifications, TSTF-GG-05-01, Revision 1, and with
NUREG-1431, Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants as
updated by NRC approved generic changes.
Date of issuance: September 9, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 3-13, and Unit 4-13.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses and Appendix B to the combined
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 29, 2012 (77 FR
31662).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-
348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston
County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: January 23, 2013, as supplemented July
17, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
following Technical Specifications: 3.4.17, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube
Integrity,'' 5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' and 5.6.10,
``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' These changes summarize and
clarify the purpose of the TSs in accordance with TS Task Force
Traveler 510, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection
Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
Date of issuance: September 26, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 171, 153, 192, and 188.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81, NPF-2 and NPF-8 :
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 14, 2013 (78 FR
28254). The supplemental letter dated July 17, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposal no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: August 15, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated March 14, and June 14, 2013.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications associated
[[Page 64552]]
with the Low Temperature Overpressure System and the Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2.
Date of issuance: October 2, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 193 and 189.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR
60153). The supplements dated March 14, and June 14, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 1, 2011, as supplemented on
February 10, April 30, December 18, 2012, February 27, June 14, August
7, August 30, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.7.9 by changing the criteria for nuclear service
cooling water tower three- and four-fan operation and provides a 7-day
Completion Time for one-fan/spray cell being inoperable under certain
conditions.
Date of issuance: September 18, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 170 and 152.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR
67489). The supplemental letters dated February 10, April 30, December
18, 2012, February 27, June 14, August 7, August 30, 2013, provided
additional information clarifying the license amendment request, did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did
not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia and
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2,
Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: September 27, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments authorize the
addition of a 15-minute threshold for reactor coolant system leaks,
based on NRC's Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2003-18, Supplement 2,
``Use of NEI 99-01, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action
Levels, Revision 4, Dated January 2003,'' dated December 12, 2005.
Date of issuance: September 25, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 270, 252, 280, and 280.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, DPR-32 and
DPR-37: Amendments changed the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 11, 2012 (77
FR 73691), and August 1, 2013 (78 FR 46616).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-
281, Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments: September 26, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise the
Technical Specifications to use a temporary 30'' seismic, non-missile
protected jumper for providing service water to the component cooling
heat exchangers (CCHX) while the licensee cleans, inspects, repairs (if
necessary), and recoats (if necessary) the existing CCHX service water
supply piping. The licensee will use the temporary jumper for up to 35
days during each of the next two Unit 1 refueling outages, which the
licensee has scheduled to perform in 2013 and 2015.
Date of issuance: September 20, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 279 and 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments change the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The supplements dated
June 4, and September 3, 2013, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: May 31, 2012, and October 25,
2012, as supplemented by letters dated December 20, 2012, January 17,
2013, February 21, 2013, April 4, 2013, and May 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments approve the upgraded
Fuel Handling Building crane.
Date of issuance: September 19, 2013.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.
Amendment Nos.: 186 and 173.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48: These amendments
are effective on the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to
the start of operations to transfer spent fuel to the Zion Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2012 (77 FR
47123). The October 25, 2012, December 20, 2012, January 17, 2013,
February 21, 2013, April 4, 2013, and May 16, 2013, submittals provided
clarifying information that did not change the scope of the original
request.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2013.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October 2013.
[[Page 64553]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Monninger,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2013-25394 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P