Notice of Opportunity for Comment on Model Safety Evaluation for Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler To Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process, 12845-12849 [E7-4940]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices
plant nor does it affect any plant operating
parameter. The change does not create the
potential for a new or different kind of
accident from any previously calculated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does
Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the
Margin of Safety
The proposed change revises the limits on
noble gase radioactivity in the primary
coolant. The proposed change is consistent
with the assumptions in the safety analyses
and will ensure the monitored values protect
the initial assumptions in the safety analyses.
Based upon the reasoning presented above
and the previous discussion of the
amendment request, the requested change
does not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this llth day
of ll, ll.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Project Manager,
Plant Licensing Branch [ ], Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–4939 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Notice of Opportunity for Comment on
Model Safety Evaluation for Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler To Provide Actions for One
Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/
EFW Pump Inoperable Using the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has prepared a
model safety evaluation (SE) relating to
proposed changes to Actions in the
Standard Technical Specifications (STS)
relating to One Steam Supply to Turbine
Driven Auxiliary Feedwater /
Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW)
Pump Inoperable. This change would
establish a Completion Time in the
Standard Technical Specifications for
the Condition where one steam supply
to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump
is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW
train. The NRC staff has also prepared
a model application and model no
significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination relating to this
matter. The purpose of these models is
to permit the NRC to efficiently process
amendments that propose to adopt the
associated changes into plant-specific
technical specifications (TS). Licensees
of nuclear power reactors to which the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Mar 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
models apply can request amendments
confirming the applicability of the SE
and NSHC determination to their
reactors. The NRC staff is requesting
comments on the Model SE, Model
Application and Model NSHC
determination prior to announcing their
availability for referencing in license
amendment applications.
DATES: The comment period expires 30
days from the date of this publication.
Comments received after this date will
be considered if it is practical to do so,
but the Commission can only ensure
consideration for comments received on
or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted either electronically or via
U.S. mail.
To submit comments or questions on
a proposed standard technical
specification change via the Internet,
use Form for Sending Comments on
NRC Documents, then select Proposed
Changes to Technical Specifications. If
you are commenting on a proposed
change, please match your comments
with the correct proposed change by
copying the title of the proposed change
from column one to the previous table
into the appropriate field of the
comment form.
Submit written comments to: Chief,
Rules and Directives Branch, Division of
Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop T–6D59, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Hand deliver comments to 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on
Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be
examined at the NRC’s Public Document
Room, located at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland.
Comments may be submitted by
electronic mail to CLIIP@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trent L. Wertz, Technical Specifications
Branch, Division of Inspection and
Regional Support, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O–12H2,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone
301–415–1568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06,
‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process for Adopting Standard
Technical Specification Changes for
Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March
20, 2000. The consolidated line item
improvement process (CLIIP) is
intended to improve the efficiency and
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12845
transparency of NRC licensing
processes. This is accomplished by
processing proposed changes to the
Standard Technical Specifications (STS)
(NUREGs 1430—1434) in a manner that
supports subsequent license amendment
applications. The CLIIP includes an
opportunity for the public to comment
on proposed changes to the STS
following a preliminary assessment by
the NRC staff and finding that the
change will likely be offered for
adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs
the NRC staff to evaluate any comments
received for a proposed change to the
STS and to either reconsider the change
or proceed with announcing the
availability of the change to licensees.
Those licensees opting to apply for the
subject change to TS are responsible for
reviewing the NRC staff’s evaluation,
referencing the applicable technical
justifications, and providing any
necessary plant specific information.
Each amendment application submitted
in response to the notice of availability
would be processed and noticed in
accordance with applicable rules and
NRC procedures.
This notice for comment involves
establishing a Completion Time in the
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.7.5 of the STS for the Condition where
one steam supply to the turbine driven
AFW/EFW pump is inoperable
concurrent with an inoperable motor
driven AFW/EFW train. In addition, this
notice for comment involves changes to
the STS that establish specific
Conditions and Action requirements for
two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are
inoperable at the same time and for
when the turbine driven AFW/EFW
train is inoperable either (a) due solely
to one inoperable steam supply, or (b)
due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply. The changes
were proposed by the Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) in
TSTF Traveler TSTF–412, Revision 3,
which is accessible electronically from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html (Accession No.
ML070100363). Persons who do not
have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should
contact the NRC Public Document Room
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
Applicability
This proposed change to adopt TSTF–
412 is applicable to all pressurized
water reactors (PWRs) designed by
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
12846
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices
Babcock and Wilcox (B&W),
Westinghouse, and Combustion
Engineering (CE). If approved, to
efficiently process the incoming license
amendment applications, the NRC staff
will request that each licensee applying
for the changes addressed by TSTF–412,
Revision 3, use the CLIIP to submit a
License Amendment Request (LAR) that
conforms to the enclosed Model
Application (Enclosure 1). Any
deviations from the Model Application
should be explained in the licensee’s
submittal. Significant deviations from
the approach, or inclusion of additional
changes to the license, will result in
staff rejection of the submittal. Instead,
licensees desiring significant variations
and/or additional changes should
submit a LAR that does not claim to
adopt TSTF–412. Variations from the
approach recommended in this notice
may require additional review by the
NRC staff and may increase the time and
resources needed for the review.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Public Notices
This notice requests comments from
interested members of the public within
30 days of the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Following the NRC
staff’s evaluation of comments received
as a result of this notice, the NRC staff
may reconsider the proposed change or
may proceed with announcing the
availability of the change in a
subsequent notice (perhaps with some
changes to the SE or proposed NSHC
determination as a result of public
comments).
If the NRC staff announces the
availability of the change, licensees
wishing to adopt the change will submit
an application in accordance with
applicable rules and other regulatory
requirements. The NRC staff will in turn
issue for each application a notice of
proposed action, which includes a
proposed NSHC determination. A notice
of issuance of an amendment of
operating license will also be issued to
announce the adoption of TSTF–412 for
each plant that applies for and receives
the requested change.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day
of March, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Kobetz,
Chief, Technical Specifications Branch,
Division of Inspection and Regional Support,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment:
The following example of a license
amendment request (LAR) was prepared by
the NRC staff to facilitate the adoption of
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–412, Revision 3 ‘‘Provide
Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine
Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.’’ The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Mar 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
model provides the expected level of detail
and content for a LAR to adopt TSTF–412,
Revision 3. Licensees remain responsible for
ensuring that their plant-specific LAR fulfills
their administrative requirements as well as
NRC regulations.
in lieu of using this oath or affirmation
statement].
If you should have any questions regarding
this submittal, please contact [ ].
Proposed Model License Amendment
Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Document Control Desk,
Washington, DC 20555.
Subject: Plant Name
Docket No. 50—Application for Technical
Specification Improvement To Revise
Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine
Driven Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency
Feedwater Pump Inoperable Using the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of 10
CFR 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), [LICENSEE] is
submitting a request for an amendment to the
technical specifications (TS) for [PLANT
NAME, UNIT NOS.].
The proposed amendment establishes
Conditions, Required Actions, and
Completion Times in the Standard Technical
Specifications (STS) for the Condition where
one steam supply to the turbine driven
Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater
(AFW/EFW) pump is inoperable concurrent
with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW
train. In addition, this amendment
establishes changes to the STS that establish
specific Actions when two motor driven
AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same
time and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train
is inoperable either (a) due solely to one
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to
reasons other than one inoperable steam
supply. The change is consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–412, Revision 3,
‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to
Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump
Inoperable.’’ The availability of this technical
specification improvement was announced in
the Federal Register on [DATE OF NOTICE
OF AVAILABILITY] as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process
(CLIIP).
Enclosure 1 provides a description of the
proposed change and confirmation of
applicability.
Enclosure 2 provides the existing TS pages
marked-up to show the proposed change.
Enclosure 3 provides the existing TS Bases
pages marked-up to reflect the proposed
change.
There are no new regulatory commitments
associated with this proposed change.
[LICENSEE] requests approval of the
proposed license amendment by [DATE],
with the amendment being implemented [BY
DATE OR WITHIN X DAYS].
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy
of this application, with enclosures, is being
provided to the designated [STATE] Official.
I declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the United States of America that
I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this
request and that the foregoing is true and
correct. [Note that request may be notarized
Enclosures:
1. Description and Assessment
2. Proposed Technical Specification
Changes
3. Proposed Technical Specification Bases
Changes
cc:
NRR Project Manager
Regional Office
Resident Inspector
State Contact
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Sincerely,
Name, Title
Enclosure 1 to Model License Amendment
Request
Description and Assessment
1.0
Description
The proposed License amendment
establishes a new Completion Time in
Standard Technical Specifications Section
[3.7.5] where one steam supply to the turbine
driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable
concurrent with an inoperable motor driven
AFW/EFW train. This amendment also
establishes specific Conditions and Action
requirements when two motor driven AFW/
EFW trains are inoperable at the same time
and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is
inoperable either (a) due solely to one
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to
reasons other than one inoperable steam
supply.
The changes are consistent with NRC
approved Industry/Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF–412,
Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One Steam
Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump
Inoperable.’’ The availability of this technical
specification improvement was announced in
the Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR
xxxxx]) as part of the consolidated line item
improvement process (CLIIP).
2.0
Assessment
2.1 Applicability of Published Safety
Evaluation
[LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety
evaluation published on [DATE] ([xx FR
xxxxx]) as part of the CLIIP. This verification
included a review of the NRC staff’s
evaluation as well as the supporting
information provided to support TSTF–412,
Revision 3. [LICENSEE] has concluded that
the justifications presented in the TSTF
proposal and the safety evaluation prepared
by the NRC staff are applicable to [PLANT,
UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for
the incorporation of the changes to the
[PLANT] Technical Specifications.
2.2 Optional Changes and Variations
[LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations
or deviations from the technical specification
changes described in TSTF–412, Revision 3,
or the NRC staff’s model safety evaluation
published in the Federal Register on [DATE]
([xx FR xxxxx]).
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices
3.0
Regulatory Analysis
3.1 No Significant Hazards Determination
[LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination published on [DATE] as part
of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that
the proposed determination presented in the
notice is applicable to [PLANT] and the
determination is hereby incorporated by
reference to satisfy the requirements of 10
CFR 50.91(a).
3.2 Verification and Commitments
There are no new regulatory commitments
associated with this proposed change.
4.0 Environmental Evaluation
[LICENSEE] has reviewed the
environmental evaluation included in the
model safety evaluation published in the
Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx])
as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has
concluded that the NRC staff’s findings
presented in that evaluation are applicable to
[PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby
incorporated by reference for this
application.
Enclosure 2 to Model License Amendment
Request: Proposed Technical Specification
Changes
Enclosure 3 to Model License Amendment
Request: Changes To TS Bases Pages
Proposed Model Safety Evaluation
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Consolidated
Line Item Improvement
Technical Specification Task Force
Traveler TSTF–412, Revision 3, Provide
Actions for One Steam Supply to the Turbine
Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
1.0 Introduction
By application dated [DATE], [LICENSEE
NAME] (the licensee), submitted a request for
changes to the [PLANT NAME], Technical
Specifications (TS) (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession No. [MLxxxxxxxxx]). The
requested change would establish a
Completion Time for the Condition where
one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/
EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train and
establish specific Conditions and Required
Actions when two motor driven AFW/EFW
trains are inoperable at the same time and the
turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable
either (a) due solely to one inoperable steam
supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply.
These changes were described in a Notice
of Availability published in the Federal
Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]).
2.0 Regulatory Evaluation
In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission
established its regulatory requirements
related to the content of Technical
Specifications (TS). Pursuant to 10 CFR
50.36(c), TS are required to include items in
the following categories: (1) safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, and limiting
control settings; (2) limiting conditions for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Mar 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance
requirements (SRs); (4) design features; and
(5) administrative controls. The rule does not
specify the particular requirements to be
included in a plant’s TS.
3.0
Technical Evaluation
TS 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)/
Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System
The AFW/EFW System is designed to
automatically supply sufficient water to the
steam generator(s) to remove decay heat upon
the loss of normal feedwater supply with
steam generator pressure at the set point of
the Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs).
Subsequently, the AFW/EFW System
supplies sufficient water to cool the unit to
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System entry
conditions, with steam being released
through the Atmospheric Dump Valves
(ADVs).
AFW/EFW Systems typically consist of
two motor driven AFW/EFW pumps and one
steam turbine driven pump configured into
three trains. The capacity of the motor driven
and steam driven AFW/EFW pumps can vary
by plant. Motor driven pumps typically
provide 50% or 100% of the required AFW/
EFW flow capacity as assumed in the
accident analysis. Motor driven AFW/EFW
pumps are typically powered from an
independent Class 1E power supply and each
pump train typically feeds half of the steam
generators, although each pump has the
capability to be realigned from the control
room to feed other steam generators. The
steam turbine driven AFW/EFW pump
provides either 100% or 200% of the
required capacity to all steam generators. The
steam turbine driven pump receives steam
from two main steam lines upstream of the
main steam isolation valves. Each of the
steam feed lines will supply 100% of the
requirements of the turbine driven AFW/
EFW pump.
LCO 3.7.5, Condition A (as Proposed)
Condition A is modified to refer to the
inoperability of a turbine driven AFW/EFW
train due to an inoperable steam supply,
instead of referring to the inoperability of a
turbine driven AFW/EFW pump. This change
is being proposed in order to make Condition
A train oriented instead of component
oriented, consistent with the other
Conditions that are included in STS 3.7.5.
The train oriented approach is consistent
with the preferred approach that is generally
reflected in the STS, and therefore the
proposed change is considered to be
acceptable.
STS 3.7.5, Condition C (as Proposed)
A new Condition C with two possible
Required Actions (C.1 OR C.2) is proposed
for the turbine driven AFW/EFW train being
inoperable due to one inoperable steam
supply and one motor driven AFW/EFW
train being inoperable at the same time.
Required Action C.1 requires restoration of
the affected steam supply to operable status
within either 24 or 48 hours, depending on
the capability of the motor driven AFW/EFW
train that remains operable. Alternatively,
Required Action C.2 requires restoration of
the inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12847
within either 24 or 48 hours, again
depending on the capability of the motor
driven AFW/EFW train that remains
operable. New Condition C provides two
proposed Completion Times that are
dependent upon the capacity of the
remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW
train to provide AFW/EFW to the steam
generators.
A proposed 24 hour Completion Time is
applicable to plants that may provide
insufficient flow to the steam generators
(SGs) in accordance with accident analyses
assumptions if a main steam line break
(MSLB) or feedwater line break (FLB) were to
occur that renders the remaining steam
supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW
pump inoperable (a concurrent single failure
is not assumed). Insufficient feedwater flow
could result, for example, if a single motor
driven AFW/EFW train does not have
sufficient capacity to satisfy accident
analyses assumptions, or if the operable
pump is feeding the faulted SG (i.e. the SG
that is aligned to the operable steam supply
for the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump).
[This would typically apply to plants with
each AFW/EFW motor driven pump having
less than 100% of the required flow.]
Likewise, a proposed 48 hour Completion
Time is applicable when the remaining
operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is
capable of providing sufficient feedwater
flow in accordance with accident analyses
assumptions. [This would typically apply to
plants with each AFW/EFW motor driven
pump having greater than or equal to 100%
of the required flow.]
The STS typically allows a 72 hour
Completion Time for Conditions where the
remaining operable equipment is able to
mitigate postulated accidents without
assuming a concurrent single active failure.
In this particular case, a 24 hour Completion
Time is proposed for the situation where the
AFW/EFW system would be able to perform
its function for most postulated events, and
would only be challenged by a MSLB or FLB
that renders the remaining operable steam
supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW
pump inoperable. Additionally, depending
on the capacity of the operable motor driven
AFW/EFW pump, it may be able to mitigate
MSLB and FLB accidents during those
instances when it is not aligned to the faulted
SG. The selection of 24 hours for the
Completion Time is based on the remaining
operable steam supply to the turbine driven
AFW/EFW pump and the continued
functionality of the turbine driven AFW/EFW
train, the remaining operable motor driven
AFW/EFW train, and the low likelihood of an
event occurring during this 24 hour period
that would challenge the capability of the
AFW/EFW system to provide feedwater to
the SGs. The proposed Completion Time for
this particular situation is consistent with
what was approved for Waterford 3 by
License Amendment 173 for a similar
Condition (ADAMS Accession No.
ML012840538), and it is commensurate with
the STS in that the proposed Completion
Time is much less than the 72 hours that is
allowed for the situation where accident
mitigation capability is maintained.
Therefore, the NRC staff agrees that the
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
12848
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices
proposed 24 hour Completion Time is
acceptable for this particular situation.
A 48 hour Completion Time is proposed
for the situation where the remaining
operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is
able to mitigate postulated accidents in
accordance with accident analyses
assumptions without assuming a concurrent
single active failure. The selection of 48
hours is based on the continued capability of
the AFW/EFW system to perform its
function, while at the same time recognizing
that this Condition represents a higher level
of degradation than one inoperable AFW/
EFW train which is currently allowed for up
to 72 hours by STS 3.7.5. The proposed 48
hour Completion Time represents an
appropriate balance between the more severe
24 hour situation discussed in the previous
paragraph and the less severe Condition that
is afforded a 72 hour Completion Time by the
current STS. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees
that the proposed 48 hour Completion Time
is acceptable for this particular situation.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
STS 3.7.5, Condition D (as Proposed)
The current Condition C is renamed as
Condition D. This Condition has been
modified to incorporate changes brought on
by the addition of new Condition C. The first
Condition has been modified and now
applies to the situation where the Required
Action and associated Completion Time of
Condition A, B, or C are not met. This section
of Condition D is modified to also apply to
the new Condition C when the Completion
Time that is specified for new Condition C
is not met. The NRC staff considers this to
be appropriate and consistent with existing
STS 3.7.5 requirements to place the plant in
a mode where the Condition does not apply
when the Required Actions are not met.
The second Condition following the first
‘‘OR’’ in Condition D is modified from ‘‘Two
AFW/EFW trains inoperable in MODE 1, 2,
or 3’’ to ‘‘Two AFW/EFW trains inoperable
in MODE 1, 2, or 3 for reasons other than
Condition C.’’ This change is necessary to
recognize the situation specified by
Condition C (as proposed) where one motor
driven AFW/EFW train is allowed to be
inoperable at the same time that the turbine
driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable due to
an inoperable steam supply to the pump
turbine. Therefore, the NRC staff considers
the proposed change to be acceptable.
The Required Actions associated with this
Condition were renamed from C.1 AND C.2
to D.1 AND D.2 but not otherwise changed.
Required Action D.1 requires the plant to be
in Mode 3 in 6 hours, and Required Action
D.2 requires the plant to be in Mode 4 in 18
hours. This change is purely editorial as no
other changes are involved. Therefore, this
proposed change is acceptable.
STS 3.7.5, Condition E (as Proposed)
Because current Condition C is renamed as
Condition D, current Condition D is renamed
as Condition E. This change is purely
editorial as no other changes are involved.
Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
STS 3.7.5, Condition F (as Proposed)
Because current Condition D is renamed as
Condition E, current Condition E is renamed
as Condition F. This change is purely
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Mar 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
editorial as no other changes are involved.
Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
STS 3.7.5 Bases (as Proposed)
Though changes to the STS Bases do not
require NRC approval per se, changes to the
STS Bases were reviewed to assess their
consistency with the proposed changes to
STS 3.7.5. The proposed changes to the STS
Bases appeared to be consistent with the
proposed changes to STS 3.7.5.
4.0 State Consultation
In accordance with the Commission’s
regulations, the [STATE] State official was
notified of the proposed issuance of the
amendments. The State official had [(1) no
comments or (2) the following comments—
with subsequent disposition by the NRC
staff].
5.0 Environmental Consideration
The amendment changes a requirement
with respect to the installation or use of a
facility component located within the
restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20
and changes surveillance requirements. The
NRC staff has determined that the
amendment involves no significant increase
in the amounts and no significant change in
the types of any effluents that may be
released offsite, and that there is no
significant increase in individual or
cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a
proposed finding that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, and there has been [(1) no
public comment on such finding (2) the
following comments with subsequent
disposition by the NRC staff ([xx FR xxxxx,
DATE]). Accordingly, the amendment meets
the eligibility criteria for categorical
exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment need be prepared
in connection with the issuance of the
amendment.
6.0 Conclusion
The Commission has concluded, based on
the considerations discussed above, that (1)
there is reasonable assurance that the health
and safety of the public will not be
endangered by operation in the proposed
manner, (2) such activities will be conducted
in compliance with the Commission’s
regulations, and (3) the issuance of the
amendments will not be inimical to the
common defense and security or to the health
and safety of the public.
The proposed changes are consistent with
NRC practices and policies as generally
reflected in the STS and as reflected by
applicable precedents that have been
approved. Therefore, the NRC staff has
determined that the proposed changes to STS
3.7.5 should be approved.
Model No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination
Description of amendment request: The
requested change, applicable to all
pressurized water reactors (PWRs) designed
by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W),
Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(CE), would provide changes to the Actions
in the Standard Technical Specifications
(STS) relating to One Steam Supply to
Turbine Driven Auxiliary Feedwater/
Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) Pump
Inoperable. The proposed change is
described in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler
TSTF–412, Revision 3, and was described in
the Notice of Availability published in the
Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination: As required by
10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of
no significant hazards consideration is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater
(AFW/EFW) System is not an initiator of any
design basis accident or event, and therefore
the proposed changes do not increase the
probability of any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes to address
the condition of one or two motor driven
AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine
driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one
steam supply inoperable do not change the
response of the plant to any accidents.
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 release assumptions
used in evaluating the radiological
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do
not increase the types and amounts of
radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite, nor significantly increase individual
or cumulative occupational/public radiation
exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any 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 result in a
change in the manner in which the AFW/
EFW System provides plant protection. The
AFW/EFW System will continue to supply
water to the steam generators to remove
decay heat and other residual heat by
delivering at least the minimum required
flow rate to the steam generators. There are
no design changes associated with the
proposed changes. The changes to the
Conditions and Required Actions do not
change any existing accident scenarios, nor
create any new or different accident
scenarios.
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 52 / Monday, March 19, 2007 / Notices
The 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. In addition, the changes do
not impose any new or different
requirements or eliminate any existing
requirements. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice.
Therefore, the changes 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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not impacted by these
changes. The proposed changes will not
result in plant operation in a configuration
outside the design basis.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed change
involves 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this XXth
day of XX, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Project Manager,
Plant Licensing Branch [ ], Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7–4940 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Upon written request, copies available
from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
Extension: Rule 17Ad–11, SEC File No. 270–
261, OMB Control No. 3235–0274.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information
discussed below.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Mar 16, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Rule 17Ad–11: Reports Regarding
Aged Record Differences, Buy-ins, and
Failure To Post Certificate Detail To
Master Securityholder Files
Rule 17Ad–11 (17 CFR 240.17Ad–11)
requires all registered transfer agents to
report to issuers and the appropriate
regulatory agency in the event that aged
record differences exceed certain dollar
value thresholds. An aged record
difference occurs when an issuer’s
records do not agree with those of
securityowners as indicated, for
instance, on certificates presented to the
transfer agent for purchase, redemption
or transfer. In addition, the rule requires
transfer agents to report to the
appropriate regulatory agency in the
event of a failure to post certificate
detail to the master securityholder file
within 5 business days of the time
required by Rule 17Ad–10 (17 CFR
240.17 Ad–10). Also, transfer agents
must maintain a copy of each report
prepared under Rule 17Ad–11 for a
period of three years following the date
of the report. This recordkeeping
requirement assists the Commission and
other regulatory agencies with
monitoring transfer agents and ensuring
compliance with the rule.
Because the information required by
Rule 17Ad–11 is already available to
transfer agents, any collection burden
for small transfer agents is minimal. The
staff estimates that the average number
of hours necessary to comply with Rule
17Ad–11 is one hour annually. Based
upon past submissions, the total burden
is 50 hours annually for the transfer
agent industry.
The retention period for the
recordkeeping requirement under Rule
17Ad–11 is three years following the
date of a report prepared pursuant to the
rule. The recordkeeping requirement
under Rule 17Ad–11 is mandatory to
assist the Commission and other
regulatory agencies with monitoring
transfer agents and ensuring compliance
with the rule. This rule does not involve
the collection of confidential
information. Please note that an agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number.
Comments should be directed to (i)
Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by
sending an e-mail to:
David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov; and (ii) R.
Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12849
Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria,
VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov. Comments must
be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.
Dated: March 7, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–4893 Filed 3–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Submissions for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and
Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.
Extension: Form 10–QSB, OMB Control No.
3235–0416, SEC File No. 270–369.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities
and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) has submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget this
request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information
discussed below.
Form 10–QSB (17 CFR 249.308b) is a
quarterly report form that is available to
‘‘small business issuers’’ as defined by
regulations under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’)
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), and is used by
such issuers to satisfy their quarterly
reporting obligations pursuant to
Section 13 and Section 15(d) of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m and
78o(d)). Form 10–QSB provides a
comprehensive overview of the small
business issuer’s business, although its
requirements call for slightly less
detailed information than required by
Form 10–Q (17 CFR 249.308a). The
information provided is mandatory and
all information is made available to the
public upon request. Form 10–QSB
takes approximately 182 hours per
response to prepare and is filed by 4,066
respondents three times a year for a total
of 12,198 responses. We estimate that
75% of the 182 hours per response
(136.5 hours) is prepared by the
company for a total annual reporting
burden of 1,665,027 hours (136.5 hours
per response × 12,198 responses).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12845-12849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4940]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Opportunity for Comment on Model Safety Evaluation for
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler To Provide Actions
for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable Using
the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE)
relating to proposed changes to Actions in the Standard Technical
Specifications (STS) relating to One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven
Auxiliary Feedwater / Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) Pump Inoperable.
This change would establish a Completion Time in the Standard Technical
Specifications for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine
driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor
driven AFW/EFW train. The NRC staff has also prepared a model
application and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is
to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to
adopt the associated changes into plant-specific technical
specifications (TS). Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the
models apply can request amendments confirming the applicability of the
SE and NSHC determination to their reactors. The NRC staff is
requesting comments on the Model SE, Model Application and Model NSHC
determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in
license amendment applications.
DATES: The comment period expires 30 days from the date of this
publication. Comments received after this date will be considered if it
is practical to do so, but the Commission can only ensure consideration
for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S.
mail.
To submit comments or questions on a proposed standard technical
specification change via the Internet, use Form for Sending Comments on
NRC Documents, then select Proposed Changes to Technical
Specifications. If you are commenting on a proposed change, please
match your comments with the correct proposed change by copying the
title of the proposed change from column one to the previous table into
the appropriate field of the comment form.
Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001.
Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to CLIIP@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trent L. Wertz, Technical
Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and Regional Support,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-12H2, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-
1568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process for Adopting Standard Technical Specification
Changes for Power Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to
improve the efficiency and transparency of NRC licensing processes.
This is accomplished by processing proposed changes to the Standard
Technical Specifications (STS) (NUREGs 1430--1434) in a manner that
supports subsequent license amendment applications. The CLIIP includes
an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the STS
following a preliminary assessment by the NRC staff and finding that
the change will likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP
directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed
change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or proceed with
announcing the availability of the change to licensees. Those licensees
opting to apply for the subject change to TS are responsible for
reviewing the NRC staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable
technical justifications, and providing any necessary plant specific
information. Each amendment application submitted in response to the
notice of availability would be processed and noticed in accordance
with applicable rules and NRC procedures.
This notice for comment involves establishing a Completion Time in
the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.7.5 of the STS for the
Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is
inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. In
addition, this notice for comment involves changes to the STS that
establish specific Conditions and Action requirements for two motor
driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and for when the
turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to one
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply. The changes were proposed by the Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) in TSTF Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3,
which is accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
(Accession No. ML070100363). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Applicability
This proposed change to adopt TSTF-412 is applicable to all
pressurized water reactors (PWRs) designed by
[[Page 12846]]
Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering
(CE). If approved, to efficiently process the incoming license
amendment applications, the NRC staff will request that each licensee
applying for the changes addressed by TSTF-412, Revision 3, use the
CLIIP to submit a License Amendment Request (LAR) that conforms to the
enclosed Model Application (Enclosure 1). Any deviations from the Model
Application should be explained in the licensee's submittal.
Significant deviations from the approach, or inclusion of additional
changes to the license, will result in staff rejection of the
submittal. Instead, licensees desiring significant variations and/or
additional changes should submit a LAR that does not claim to adopt
TSTF-412. Variations from the approach recommended in this notice may
require additional review by the NRC staff and may increase the time
and resources needed for the review.
Public Notices
This notice requests comments from interested members of the public
within 30 days of the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Following the NRC staff's evaluation of comments received as a result
of this notice, the NRC staff may reconsider the proposed change or may
proceed with announcing the availability of the change in a subsequent
notice (perhaps with some changes to the SE or proposed NSHC
determination as a result of public comments).
If the NRC staff announces the availability of the change,
licensees wishing to adopt the change will submit an application in
accordance with applicable rules and other regulatory requirements. The
NRC staff will in turn issue for each application a notice of proposed
action, which includes a proposed NSHC determination. A notice of
issuance of an amendment of operating license will also be issued to
announce the adoption of TSTF-412 for each plant that applies for and
receives the requested change.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of March, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Kobetz,
Chief, Technical Specifications Branch, Division of Inspection and
Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment:
The following example of a license amendment request (LAR) was
prepared by the NRC staff to facilitate the adoption of Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3
``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW
Pump Inoperable.'' The model provides the expected level of detail
and content for a LAR to adopt TSTF-412, Revision 3. Licensees
remain responsible for ensuring that their plant-specific LAR
fulfills their administrative requirements as well as NRC
regulations.
Proposed Model License Amendment Request
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Document Control Desk,
Washington, DC 20555.
Subject: Plant Name
Docket No. 50--Application for Technical Specification
Improvement To Revise Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven
Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater Pump Inoperable Using the
Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), [LICENSEE] is submitting a
request for an amendment to the technical specifications (TS) for
[PLANT NAME, UNIT NOS.].
The proposed amendment establishes Conditions, Required Actions,
and Completion Times in the Standard Technical Specifications (STS)
for the Condition where one steam supply to the turbine driven
Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) pump is inoperable
concurrent with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. In
addition, this amendment establishes changes to the STS that
establish specific Actions when two motor driven AFW/EFW trains are
inoperable at the same time and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is
inoperable either (a) due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or
(b) due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply. The
change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for
One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.'' The
availability of this technical specification improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on [DATE OF NOTICE OF
AVAILABILITY] as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process (CLIIP).
Enclosure 1 provides a description of the proposed change and
confirmation of applicability.
Enclosure 2 provides the existing TS pages marked-up to show the
proposed change.
Enclosure 3 provides the existing TS Bases pages marked-up to
reflect the proposed change.
There are no new regulatory commitments associated with this
proposed change.
[LICENSEE] requests approval of the proposed license amendment
by [DATE], with the amendment being implemented [BY DATE OR WITHIN X
DAYS].
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application,
with enclosures, is being provided to the designated [STATE]
Official.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that I am authorized by [LICENSEE] to make this
request and that the foregoing is true and correct. [Note that
request may be notarized in lieu of using this oath or affirmation
statement].
If you should have any questions regarding this submittal,
please contact [ ].
Sincerely,
Name, Title
Enclosures:
1. Description and Assessment
2. Proposed Technical Specification Changes
3. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes
cc:
NRR Project Manager
Regional Office
Resident Inspector
State Contact
Enclosure 1 to Model License Amendment Request
Description and Assessment
1.0 Description
The proposed License amendment establishes a new Completion Time
in Standard Technical Specifications Section [3.7.5] where one steam
supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent
with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train. This amendment also
establishes specific Conditions and Action requirements when two
motor driven AFW/EFW trains are inoperable at the same time and the
turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to
one inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply.
The changes are consistent with NRC approved Industry/Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification
Change Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One
Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.'' The
availability of this technical specification improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]) as part
of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
2.0 Assessment
2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation
[LICENSEE] has reviewed the safety evaluation published on
[DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]) as part of the CLIIP. This verification
included a review of the NRC staff's evaluation as well as the
supporting information provided to support TSTF-412, Revision 3.
[LICENSEE] has concluded that the justifications presented in the
TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff
are applicable to [PLANT, UNIT NOS.] and justify this amendment for
the incorporation of the changes to the [PLANT] Technical
Specifications.
2.2 Optional Changes and Variations
[LICENSEE] is not proposing any variations or deviations from
the technical specification changes described in TSTF-412, Revision
3, or the NRC staff's model safety evaluation published in the
Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]).
[[Page 12847]]
3.0 Regulatory Analysis
3.1 No Significant Hazards Determination
[LICENSEE] has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination published on [DATE] as part of the
CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has concluded that the proposed determination
presented in the notice is applicable to [PLANT] and the
determination is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a).
3.2 Verification and Commitments
There are no new regulatory commitments associated with this
proposed change.
4.0 Environmental Evaluation
[LICENSEE] has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in
the model safety evaluation published in the Federal Register on
[DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]) as part of the CLIIP. [LICENSEE] has
concluded that the NRC staff's findings presented in that evaluation
are applicable to [PLANT] and the evaluation is hereby incorporated
by reference for this application.
Enclosure 2 to Model License Amendment Request: Proposed Technical
Specification Changes
Enclosure 3 to Model License Amendment Request: Changes To TS Bases
Pages
Proposed Model Safety Evaluation
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-412, Revision
3, Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to the Turbine Driven AFW/
EFW Pump Inoperable
1.0 Introduction
By application dated [DATE], [LICENSEE NAME] (the licensee),
submitted a request for changes to the [PLANT NAME], Technical
Specifications (TS) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No. [MLxxxxxxxxx]). The requested change
would establish a Completion Time for the Condition where one steam
supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump is inoperable concurrent
with an inoperable motor driven AFW/EFW train and establish specific
Conditions and Required Actions when two motor driven AFW/EFW trains
are inoperable at the same time and the turbine driven AFW/EFW train
is inoperable either (a) due solely to one inoperable steam supply,
or (b) due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply.
These changes were described in a Notice of Availability
published in the Federal Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]).
2.0 Regulatory Evaluation
In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission established its regulatory
requirements related to the content of Technical Specifications
(TS). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36(c), TS are required to include items
in the following categories: (1) safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, and limiting control settings; (2) limiting
conditions for operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance requirements
(SRs); (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls. The
rule does not specify the particular requirements to be included in
a plant's TS.
3.0 Technical Evaluation
TS 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)/Emergency Feedwater (EFW)
System
The AFW/EFW System is designed to automatically supply
sufficient water to the steam generator(s) to remove decay heat upon
the loss of normal feedwater supply with steam generator pressure at
the set point of the Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs). Subsequently,
the AFW/EFW System supplies sufficient water to cool the unit to
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System entry conditions, with steam
being released through the Atmospheric Dump Valves (ADVs).
AFW/EFW Systems typically consist of two motor driven AFW/EFW
pumps and one steam turbine driven pump configured into three
trains. The capacity of the motor driven and steam driven AFW/EFW
pumps can vary by plant. Motor driven pumps typically provide 50% or
100% of the required AFW/EFW flow capacity as assumed in the
accident analysis. Motor driven AFW/EFW pumps are typically powered
from an independent Class 1E power supply and each pump train
typically feeds half of the steam generators, although each pump has
the capability to be realigned from the control room to feed other
steam generators. The steam turbine driven AFW/EFW pump provides
either 100% or 200% of the required capacity to all steam
generators. The steam turbine driven pump receives steam from two
main steam lines upstream of the main steam isolation valves. Each
of the steam feed lines will supply 100% of the requirements of the
turbine driven AFW/EFW pump.
LCO 3.7.5, Condition A (as Proposed)
Condition A is modified to refer to the inoperability of a
turbine driven AFW/EFW train due to an inoperable steam supply,
instead of referring to the inoperability of a turbine driven AFW/
EFW pump. This change is being proposed in order to make Condition A
train oriented instead of component oriented, consistent with the
other Conditions that are included in STS 3.7.5. The train oriented
approach is consistent with the preferred approach that is generally
reflected in the STS, and therefore the proposed change is
considered to be acceptable.
STS 3.7.5, Condition C (as Proposed)
A new Condition C with two possible Required Actions (C.1 OR
C.2) is proposed for the turbine driven AFW/EFW train being
inoperable due to one inoperable steam supply and one motor driven
AFW/EFW train being inoperable at the same time. Required Action C.1
requires restoration of the affected steam supply to operable status
within either 24 or 48 hours, depending on the capability of the
motor driven AFW/EFW train that remains operable. Alternatively,
Required Action C.2 requires restoration of the inoperable motor
driven AFW/EFW train within either 24 or 48 hours, again depending
on the capability of the motor driven AFW/EFW train that remains
operable. New Condition C provides two proposed Completion Times
that are dependent upon the capacity of the remaining operable motor
driven AFW/EFW train to provide AFW/EFW to the steam generators.
A proposed 24 hour Completion Time is applicable to plants that
may provide insufficient flow to the steam generators (SGs) in
accordance with accident analyses assumptions if a main steam line
break (MSLB) or feedwater line break (FLB) were to occur that
renders the remaining steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW
pump inoperable (a concurrent single failure is not assumed).
Insufficient feedwater flow could result, for example, if a single
motor driven AFW/EFW train does not have sufficient capacity to
satisfy accident analyses assumptions, or if the operable pump is
feeding the faulted SG (i.e. the SG that is aligned to the operable
steam supply for the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump). [This would
typically apply to plants with each AFW/EFW motor driven pump having
less than 100% of the required flow.] Likewise, a proposed 48 hour
Completion Time is applicable when the remaining operable motor
driven AFW/EFW train is capable of providing sufficient feedwater
flow in accordance with accident analyses assumptions. [This would
typically apply to plants with each AFW/EFW motor driven pump having
greater than or equal to 100% of the required flow.]
The STS typically allows a 72 hour Completion Time for
Conditions where the remaining operable equipment is able to
mitigate postulated accidents without assuming a concurrent single
active failure. In this particular case, a 24 hour Completion Time
is proposed for the situation where the AFW/EFW system would be able
to perform its function for most postulated events, and would only
be challenged by a MSLB or FLB that renders the remaining operable
steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump inoperable.
Additionally, depending on the capacity of the operable motor driven
AFW/EFW pump, it may be able to mitigate MSLB and FLB accidents
during those instances when it is not aligned to the faulted SG. The
selection of 24 hours for the Completion Time is based on the
remaining operable steam supply to the turbine driven AFW/EFW pump
and the continued functionality of the turbine driven AFW/EFW train,
the remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW train, and the low
likelihood of an event occurring during this 24 hour period that
would challenge the capability of the AFW/EFW system to provide
feedwater to the SGs. The proposed Completion Time for this
particular situation is consistent with what was approved for
Waterford 3 by License Amendment 173 for a similar Condition (ADAMS
Accession No. ML012840538), and it is commensurate with the STS in
that the proposed Completion Time is much less than the 72 hours
that is allowed for the situation where accident mitigation
capability is maintained. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees that the
[[Page 12848]]
proposed 24 hour Completion Time is acceptable for this particular
situation.
A 48 hour Completion Time is proposed for the situation where
the remaining operable motor driven AFW/EFW train is able to
mitigate postulated accidents in accordance with accident analyses
assumptions without assuming a concurrent single active failure. The
selection of 48 hours is based on the continued capability of the
AFW/EFW system to perform its function, while at the same time
recognizing that this Condition represents a higher level of
degradation than one inoperable AFW/EFW train which is currently
allowed for up to 72 hours by STS 3.7.5. The proposed 48 hour
Completion Time represents an appropriate balance between the more
severe 24 hour situation discussed in the previous paragraph and the
less severe Condition that is afforded a 72 hour Completion Time by
the current STS. Therefore, the NRC staff agrees that the proposed
48 hour Completion Time is acceptable for this particular situation.
STS 3.7.5, Condition D (as Proposed)
The current Condition C is renamed as Condition D. This
Condition has been modified to incorporate changes brought on by the
addition of new Condition C. The first Condition has been modified
and now applies to the situation where the Required Action and
associated Completion Time of Condition A, B, or C are not met. This
section of Condition D is modified to also apply to the new
Condition C when the Completion Time that is specified for new
Condition C is not met. The NRC staff considers this to be
appropriate and consistent with existing STS 3.7.5 requirements to
place the plant in a mode where the Condition does not apply when
the Required Actions are not met.
The second Condition following the first ``OR'' in Condition D
is modified from ``Two AFW/EFW trains inoperable in MODE 1, 2, or
3'' to ``Two AFW/EFW trains inoperable in MODE 1, 2, or 3 for
reasons other than Condition C.'' This change is necessary to
recognize the situation specified by Condition C (as proposed) where
one motor driven AFW/EFW train is allowed to be inoperable at the
same time that the turbine driven AFW/EFW train is inoperable due to
an inoperable steam supply to the pump turbine. Therefore, the NRC
staff considers the proposed change to be acceptable.
The Required Actions associated with this Condition were renamed
from C.1 AND C.2 to D.1 AND D.2 but not otherwise changed. Required
Action D.1 requires the plant to be in Mode 3 in 6 hours, and
Required Action D.2 requires the plant to be in Mode 4 in 18 hours.
This change is purely editorial as no other changes are involved.
Therefore, this proposed change is acceptable.
STS 3.7.5, Condition E (as Proposed)
Because current Condition C is renamed as Condition D, current
Condition D is renamed as Condition E. This change is purely
editorial as no other changes are involved. Therefore, the proposed
change is acceptable.
STS 3.7.5, Condition F (as Proposed)
Because current Condition D is renamed as Condition E, current
Condition E is renamed as Condition F. This change is purely
editorial as no other changes are involved. Therefore, the proposed
change is acceptable.
STS 3.7.5 Bases (as Proposed)
Though changes to the STS Bases do not require NRC approval per
se, changes to the STS Bases were reviewed to assess their
consistency with the proposed changes to STS 3.7.5. The proposed
changes to the STS Bases appeared to be consistent with the proposed
changes to STS 3.7.5.
4.0 State Consultation
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the [STATE]
State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the
amendments. The State official had [(1) no comments or (2) the
following comments--with subsequent disposition by the NRC staff].
5.0 Environmental Consideration
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the
installation or use of a facility component located within the
restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes
surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the
amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts and no
significant change in the types of any effluents that may be
released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The
Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there
has been [(1) no public comment on such finding (2) the following
comments with subsequent disposition by the NRC staff ([xx FR xxxxx,
DATE]). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the
issuance of the amendment.
6.0 Conclusion
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations
discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the
health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation
in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in
compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance
of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and
security or to the health and safety of the public.
The proposed changes are consistent with NRC practices and
policies as generally reflected in the STS and as reflected by
applicable precedents that have been approved. Therefore, the NRC
staff has determined that the proposed changes to STS 3.7.5 should
be approved.
Model No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination
Description of amendment request: The requested change,
applicable to all pressurized water reactors (PWRs) designed by
Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), Westinghouse, and Combustion Engineering
(CE), would provide changes to the Actions in the Standard Technical
Specifications (STS) relating to One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven
Auxiliary Feedwater/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) Pump Inoperable.
The proposed change is described in Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Standard TS Change Traveler TSTF-412, Revision 3, and
was described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal
Register on [DATE] ([xx FR xxxxx]).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an
initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the
proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition
of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine
driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable
do not change the response of the plant to any accidents.
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 release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any 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 result in a change in the manner in
which the AFW/EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW
System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to
remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the
minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no
design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to
the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing
accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident
scenarios.
[[Page 12849]]
The 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. In addition,
the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice.
Therefore, the changes 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not
result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed change involves 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this XXth day of XX, 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Project Manager,
Plant Licensing Branch [ ], Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-4940 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
