Virginia Electric and Power Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 61406-61408 [E7-21425]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61406-61408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21425]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-32 and DPR-37, issued to the Virginia Electric and Power Company 
(Dominion, the licensee), for operation of the Surry Power Station, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Surry County, Virginia.
    The proposed amendment would allow use of an alternate methodology 
from that previously approved in Topical Report DOM-NAF-3-0.0-P-A, 
GOTHIC Methodology for Analyzing the Response to Postulated Pipe 
Ruptures Inside Containment, as discussed in the Surry Power Station, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 
approved methodology was used to establish boundary conditions (i.e., 
pressure, liquid temperature and water level) for the Surry 
recirculation spray (RS) strainers being installed in the Surry Units 1 
and 2 containment buildings. The boundary conditions are required to 
assess the RS strainer internal hydraulic performance following a loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA). The NRC-approved methodology contains 
significant conservatisms, which are included in the GOTHIC net 
positive suction head (NPSH) available models to maximize liquid 
temperatures and minimize containment pressure for design-basis 
containment response evaluations. However, these conservatisms are 
creating bulk conditions that are too conservative for application to 
the sump strainer performance. Specifically, for certain LOCA analyses, 
the overly conservative conditions result in a prediction of two-phase 
flow in the RS strainer for a short period of time. Therefore, an 
alternate containment GOTHIC analysis methodology is proposed to reduce 
certain overly conservative assumptions to more realistically, yet 
conservatively, address expected plant conditions in containment 
following a LOCA. The alternate method relaxes some of the 
conservatisms in the NPSH analysis methodology in Topical Report DOM-
NAF-3.0-0-P-A. The proposed alternate methodology will be used to 
demonstrate that the RS pumps have adequate NPSH available throughout 
their required service time.
    The licensee had performed calculations following an NRC audit at 
the licensee's North Anna Power Station during the week of July 16, 
2007, where an NRC auditor requested documentation of the subcooling 
margin inside of the containment sump strainers. During review of the 
calculations, it was identified that dynamic head change in the 
strainer had not been included in the calculation. Following a new 
calculation by the strainer vendor, which showed that flashing would 
not occur at North Anna, a new Surry calculation was performed which 
showed that flashing would occur under certain conditions that would 
result in the RS pumps having inadequate NPSH when four RS pumps were 
in operation at the same time. The approved GOTHIC containment analysis 
methodology for deriving NPSH was reviewed to determine whether the 
predicted flashing was reasonable. After several weeks of reviewing the 
GOTHIC model and its associated conservative inputs and assumptions, it 
was concluded that an alternate GOTHIC methodology was required to 
demonstrate that flashing would not occur. The proposed alternate 
methodology allows for a larger liquid-vapor interface area that 
accounts for additional heat transfer between the containment vapor and 
the liquid phase which is not credited in the existing methodology. The 
10 CFR 50.59 review completed for the design change package for 
installation of the Unit 1 sump strainer during the current refueling 
outage indicated that NRC approval would be required before the 
strainer was declared operable and before the Surry Unit 1 startup 
could commence following the refueling. The corresponding operability 
of the partially installed Surry Unit 2 strainer was addressed in 
accordance with the licensee's operability determination process. These 
determinations were completed and discussed with NRC staff on October 
16, 2007. Consequently, the specific need for the Surry specific GOTHIC 
containment analysis

[[Page 61407]]

methodology was only recently recognized as requiring NRC approval.
    Based on the preceding discussion, the Commission concludes that 
exigent circumstances exist.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, 
the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations 
in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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 not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors and does not implement any physical changes 
to the facility or changes in plant operation. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits, rather it confirms that required SSCs [e.g., the containment 
sump strainers and the Recirculation Spray (RS) pumps] will perform 
their function as required. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) safety analysis acceptance criteria continue to be met for 
the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not impact plant equipment design or 
function during accident conditions. The hydraulic performance of 
the GSI-191 strainers is analytically confirmed to be acceptable by 
using the alternate methodology proposed by this change. No changes 
in the methods governing normal plant operation are being 
implemented. The proposed change assures that there is adequate 
margin available to meet safety analysis criteria and does not 
introduce new failure modes, accident initiators, or equipment 
malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined, and the dose analysis acceptance criteria 
are not affected. The proposed change does not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside of the analyses or design basis 
and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition. The proposed alternate GOTHIC methodology recovers a 
small amount of conservatism; however, the analyses to determine the 
sump strainer boundary conditions retain a sufficient level of 
conservatism and demonstrate that safety related components will 
continue to be able to perform their design functions. 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.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 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 the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below. A request for hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing 
rule, which the NRC promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The 
E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve 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 a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV, or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital 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/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms Viewer(tm) to 
access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the E-
Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer \TM\ is free and is available 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. 
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on 
NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a 
digital ID certificate, had a docket created, and downloaded the EIE 
viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave 
to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) 
in accordance with NRC guidance

[[Page 61408]]

available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the filer 
submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an electronic filing 
must be submitted to the EIE 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 e-mail 
notice confirming receipt of the document. The EIE system also 
distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to 
the NRC 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 may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good 
cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 
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.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp unless excluded pursuant to 
an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a 
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. 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 submissions.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor 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 petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on 
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts 
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide 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 petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor 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, any hearing held 
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    For further details with respect to this exigent license 
application, see the application for amendment dated October 22, 2007, 
which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
    Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of October 2007.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R. A. Jervey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-21425 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P