Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 6144-6150 [2012-2594]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6144
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
2. The title of the information
collection: NRC Form 313, ‘‘Application
for Materials License’’ and NRC Forms
313A (RSO), 313A (AMP), 313A (ANP),
313A (AUD), 313A (AUT), and 313A
(AUS).
3. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0120.
4. The form number if applicable:
NRC Form 313.
5. How often the collection is
required: There is a one-time submittal
of the NRC Form 313 (which may
include the NRC Form 313A series of
forms) with information to receive a
license. Once a specific license has been
issued, there is a 10-year resubmittal of
the NRC Form 313 (which may include
the NRC form 313A series of forms) with
information for renewal of the license.
Amendment requests are submitted as
needed by the licensee.
There is a one-time submittal for all
limited specific medical use applicants
of a NRC Form 313A series form to have
each new individual identified as a
Radiation Safety Officer (RSO),
authorized medical physicist (AMP),
authorized nuclear pharmacist (ANP), or
authorized user or a subsequent
submittal of additional information for
one of these individuals to be identified
with a new authorization on a limited
specific medical use license.
NRC Form 313A (RSO) is also used by
medical broad scope licensees when
identifying a new individual as an RSO
or adding an additional RSO
authorization for the individual. This
submittal may occur when applying for
a new license, amendment, or renewal.
NRC Form 313A (ANP) is also used by
commercial nuclear pharmacy licensees
when requesting an individual be
identified for the first time as ANP. This
submittal may occur when applying for
a new license, amendment, or renewal.
6. Who will be required or asked to
report: All applicants requesting a
license, amendment or renewal of a
license for byproduct or source material.
7. An estimate of the number of
annual responses: 19,432 (2,362 NRC
licensees and 17,070 Agreement State
licensees).
8. The estimated number of annual
respondents: 19,432 (2,362 NRC
licensees and 17,070 Agreement State
licensees).
9. An estimate of the total number of
hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 83,558 hours
(10,157 NRC and 73,401 Agreement
State hours).
10. Abstract: Applicants must submit
NRC Form 313, which may include the
six forms in the 313A series, to obtain
a specific license to possess, use, or
distribute byproduct or source material.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
These six forms in the 313A series are:
(1) NRC Form 313A (RSO), ‘‘Radiation
Safety Officer Training and Experience
and Preceptor Attestation’’; (2) NRC
Form 313A (AMP), ‘‘Authorized
Medical Physicist Training and
Experience and Preceptor Attestation’’;
(3) NRC Form 313A (ANP), ‘‘Authorized
Nuclear Pharmacist Training and
Experience and Preceptor Attestation’’;
(4) NRC Form 313A (AUD), ‘‘Authorized
User Training and Experience and
Preceptor Attestation (for uses defined
under 35.100, 35.200, and 35.500)’’; (5)
NRC Form 313A (AUT), ‘‘Authorized
User Training and Experience and
Preceptor Attestation (for uses defined
under 35.300)’’; and (6) NRC Form 313A
(AUS), ‘‘Authorized User Training and
Experience and Preceptor Attestation
(for uses defined under 35.400 and
35.600).’’ The information is reviewed
by the NRC to determine whether the
applicant is qualified by training and
experience, and has equipment,
facilities, and procedures which are
adequate to protect the public health
and safety, and minimize danger to life
or property.
The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available
documents, including the final
supporting statement, at the NRC’s
Public Document Room, Room O1–F21,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB
clearance requests are available at the
NRC Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/
public-involve/doc-comment/omb/
index.html. The document will be
available on the NRC home page site for
60 days after the signature date of this
notice.
Comments and questions should be
directed to the OMB reviewer listed
below by March 8, 2012. Comments
received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be
given to comments received after this
date.
Chad Whiteman, Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(3150–0120), NEOB–10202, Office of
Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be emailed to
Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395–
4718.
The NRC Clearance Officer is
Tremaine Donnell, (301) 415–6258.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of February, 2012. For the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Tremaine Donnell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–2640 Filed 2–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0025]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from January 12,
2012 to January 25, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on
January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3508).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID
NRC–2012–0025 in the subject line of
your comments. For additional
instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing
documents related to this action, see
‘‘Submitting Comments and Accessing
Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
You may submit comments by any one
of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2012–0025. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: (301) 492–3668; email:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
• Fax comments to: RADB at (301)
492–3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Submitting Comments and Accessing
Information
Comments submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be posted on the
NRC Web site and on the Federal
rulemaking Web site, https://
www.regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available
documents related to this document
using the following methods:
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available online in the NRC Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. From this page, the public
can gain entry into ADAMS, which
provides text and image files of the
NRC’s public documents. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC’s
PDR reference staff at 1 (800) 397–4209,
(301) 415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site:
Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching on Docket ID NRC–2012–
0025.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
Under the Commission’s regulations in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (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; (2) create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic
Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part
2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC’s PDR, located at
One White Flint North, Room O1–F21,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20874. The NRC’s
regulations are accessible electronically
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6145
from the NRC Library on the NRC Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a
hearing or petition for leave to intervene
is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6146
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E–Filing rule
(72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E–
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E–Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at (301) 415–1677, to request (1) a
digital identification (ID) certificate,
which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally
sign documents and access the E–
Submittal server for any proceeding in
which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in NRC’s
‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’
which is available on the agency’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not
support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with the NRC
guidance available on the NRC’s public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. A filing is
considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link
located on the NRC’s Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–(866) 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) first class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice. Nontimely filings will not be entertained
absent a determination by the presiding
officer that the petition or request
should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a
balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii).
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection at the
NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
available online through ADAMS in the
NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who
do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC’s PDR Reference staff at
1–(800) 397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 27,
2011, as supplemented by letter dated
September 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1,
‘‘Primary Containment and Drywell
Isolation Instrumentation,’’ to revise the
allowable value setpoints for the Main
Steam Tunnel Temperature functions.
Specifically, the amendment would
modify TS Table 3.3.6.1–1, items; 1.e,
‘‘Main Steam Tunnel TemperatureHigh,’’ 3.f. ‘‘Main Steam Line Tunnel
Ambient Temperature-High,’’ and 4.h,
‘‘Main Steam Line Tunnel Ambient
Temperature-High.’’ This setpoint
revision is based upon a revision to the
analytical limit calculation. The change
will provide additional margin for
elevated temperatures in the Main
Steam Tunnel—North during the
summer reliability period. In addition,
the amendment would revise the River
Bend Station (RBS) Emergency Plan by
modifying the Emergency Action Levels
(EAL) in support of the proposed
changes to TS 3.3.6.1.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change increases the
Technical Specification allowable value for
the main steam tunnel ambient temperature
isolation instrumentation for the main steam
line isolation, Reactor Core Isolation Cooling
System isolation and the Reactor Water
Cleanup System isolation. This TS change
does not introduce the possibility of an
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident because the basis for the
instrument setpoint is not being changed as
a result of this request. The proposed TS
change involves no physical alteration of the
plant. The proposed TS change does not
degrade the performance of, or increase the
challenges to, any safety systems assumed to
function in the accident analysis. Therefore,
the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously
evaluated accident are not significantly
increased. The proposed change does not
affect the performance of any equipment
credited to mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident. The basis for
the main steam tunnel ambient temperature
isolation instrumentation has not changed as
a result of this proposed Allowable value
change.
The proposed change to the Emergency
Action Level (EAL) does not increase the
probability of an accident. The change only
impacts the initial condition for entry into
the Emergency Plan and thus has no impact
on the probability of an event. The proposed
change to the Emergency Action Level (EAL)
does not increase the consequences of an
accident. As described in the Technical
Analysis the revised setpoint continues to
support the current licensing basis and event
analysis.
Because the process, personnel, and
equipment involved in implementing the
Emergency Plan would complete the same
functions as those completed under the
existing Emergency Plan, the plan would
continue to ensure adequate protection of
public health and safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
As discussed above, the proposed change
involves increasing the TS allowable value
for the main steam tunnel ambient
temperature isolation instrumentation for the
main steam line isolation, Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling System isolation and the
Reactor Water Cleanup System isolation. The
proposed TS change does not introduce any
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6147
failure mechanisms of a different type than
those previously evaluated, since there are no
physical changes being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being
installed. No installed equipment is being
operated in a different manner. The computer
program being used has been previously used
and reviewed. As a result, no new failure
modes are being introduced. There are no
new types of failures or new or different
kinds of accidents or transients that could be
created by these changes.
The change affects the implementation of
the Emergency Plan by changing the EALs
temperature value for entry into the
Emergency Plan; however, the basis for the
temperature value is not changed. The
change to the EAL does not impact any plant
equipment or systems needed to respond to
an accident, nor does it change the results of
an analysis of plant accident consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
As discussed above, the proposed change
involves increasing the TS allowable value
for the for the main steam tunnel ambient
temperature isolation instrumentation, the
main steam line isolation, the Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling System isolation and the
Reactor Water Cleanup System isolation. The
effect of this change on system availability is
not significant, based on the determination
that the basis for the allowable values is not
being revised. The proposed change does not
adversely affect the condition or performance
of structures, systems, and components relied
upon for accident mitigation. The proposed
change does not result in any hardware
changes. Existing operating margin between
plant conditions and actual plant setpoints is
not significantly reduced due to these
changes. The proposed change does not
significantly impact any safety analysis
assumptions or results.
The change to the Emergency Plan does not
reduce the margin of safety currently
provided by the plan. As discussed in this
submittal the change does not revise the
design criteria of detecting a 25 gpm [gallon
per minute] leak. Also the methods used to
determine the revised analytical limit and
setpoint values are currently’ accepted. The
proposed change does not impact other
design basis evaluations or consequences.
Therefore the changes do not affect a margin
of safety identified in the plant accident
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A.
Aluise, Associate General Counsel—
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
6148
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: January
23, 2012.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.7, ‘‘Standby
Liquid Control (SLC) System.’’
Implementation of the Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station (GGNS) Cycle 19 core
design results in increased core
reactivity, which requires a
corresponding increase in negative
reactivity to be provided by the SLC
system. The proposed TS changes
reflect the change in the enrichment of
the boron-10 (B–10) isotope in the
sodium pentaborate (SPB) solution,
which is the credited neutron absorber.
Increasing the enrichment of the B–10
isotope in the SPB solution effectively
increases the available negative
reactivity inserted by the SLC system
without having to increase the system’s
storage capacity. The proposed change
is needed to ensure appropriate
shutdown margin can be maintained
during reload design for future cycles
beginning with Cycle 19. In addition, TS
3.1.7 will be modified from a graphical
limiting condition for operation (LCO)
to an LCO based on the product of the
SPB solution concentration (C) and the
B–10 enrichment (E) in the SPB solution
being greater than or equal to 420.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The SLC system is designed to provide the
capability of bringing the reactor, at any time
in a fuel cycle, from full power and
minimum control rod inventory to a
subcritical condition with the reactor in the
most reactive xenon-free state without taking
credit for control rod movement. The SLC
system design satisfies the requirements of 10
CFR 50.62, Requirements for the Reduction of
Risk from Anticipated Transients without
Scram (ATWS) Events for Light-Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Plants. The proposed changes
to the SPB solution requirements maintain
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
the capability of the SLC system to perform
this reactivity control function and ensure
continued compliance with the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.62.
The SLC system is not considered to be an
initiator of any event. The use of the
proposed SPB solution enriched with the B–
10 isotope does not alter the design, function,
or operation of the SLC system or increase
the likelihood of a system malfunction that
could increase the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the SLC system
do not alter the design, function, or operation
of the SLC system. The proposed change in
SPB concentration, B–10 enrichment, SPB
storage volume, and pump discharge
pressure will continue to ensure shutdown of
the reactor in the most reactive xenon-free
state without taking credit for control rod
movement. The proposed change in solution
temperature continues to ensure the boron
remains in solution and does not precipitate
out of the SLC storage tank or in the SLC
piping. The change in solution temperature
also ensures adequate net positive suction
head is available for SLC pump operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
In the event of injection, the proposed
change results in an increase in the margin
between the final B–10 concentration in the
reactor vessel and concentration required for
shutdown. Thus, the proposed change results
in additional safety margin being provided.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A.
Aluise, Associate General Counsel—
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation,
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos.: 50–
321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request:
December 15, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS)
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.7.2 for the plant service water (PSW)
and ultimate heat sink (UHS).
Specifically, surveillance requirement
(SR) 3.7.2.1 minimum water level in
each PSW pump well of the intake
structure would be revised from the
existing value of 60.7 feet (ft) mean sea
level (MSL) to 60.5 ft MSL. This change
is based on updated design basis
analyses that demonstrate that at the
new minimum level of 60.5 ft MSL
sufficient water inventory remains
available from the Altamaha River for
PSW and residual heat removal service
water (RHRSW) to handle Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA) cooling
requirements for 30 days post-accident
with no additional makeup water source
available.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulation (10 CFR), Section
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the
minimum water level in the PSW pump well,
as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL
to 60.5 ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the
ultimate heat sink (UHS) is OPERABLE by
ensuring the water level in the PSW pump
well of the intake structure is sufficient for
the PSW, RHRSW, and standby service water
pumps to supply post-LOCA cooling
requirements for 30 days. The safety function
of the UHS is to mitigate the impact of an
accident. The proposed TS change does not
result in or require any physical changes to
HNP systems, structures, and components,
including those intended for the prevention
of accidents. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level
on pump operation requirements, supply of
water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated
and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the
minimum water level in the PSW pump well,
as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL
to 60.5 ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the
UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring the water
level in the PSW pump well of the intake
structure is sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW
and standby service water pumps to supply
post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days.
The proposed TS change does not result in
or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The
potential impact of the lower PSW pump
well minimum water level on pump
operation requirements, supply of water for
30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated
and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the
minimum water level in the PSW pump well,
as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL
to 60.5 ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the
UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring the water
level in the PSW pump well of the intake
structure is sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW
and standby service water pumps to supply
post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days.
The proposed TS change does not result in
or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The
potential impact of the lower PSW pump
well minimum water level on pump
operation requirements, supply of water for
30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated
and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake,
Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket No. 50–425, Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request:
December 19, 2011.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
revise technical specification (TS) 3.7.14
‘‘Engineered Safety Features (ESF)
Room Cooler and Safety-Related
Chiller.’’ Specifically, the limiting
condition of operation (LCO) allowed
completion time for TS 3.7.14 Condition
A would be extended from 72 hours to
9 days, on a one-time only basis. Also
proposed is an editorial change to delete
a note added as an emergency change to
TS 3.7.14, which had been added in
response to an emergency license
amendment request dated August 18,
2010 (Agencywide Document Access
and Management System Accession No.
ML102300574).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulation (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 license amendment
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not alter any
plant equipment or operating practices in
such a manner that the probability of an
accident is increased. The proposed changes
will not alter assumptions relative to the
mitigation of an accident or transient event.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?
The proposed changes do not involve any
physical alteration of the plant or significant
change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. Therefore, the proposed
changes do 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?
Based on the operability of the remaining
ESF Room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller
Train 2A, the accident analysis assumptions
continue to be met with enactment of the
proposed changes. The system design and
operation are not affected by the proposed
changes. The safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not altered by the proposed
changes. Finally, the proposed compensatory
measures will provide further assurance that
no significant reduction in a safety margin
will occur.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6149
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H.
Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600
Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30308–2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for A Hearing in
connection with these actions was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are accessible
online through the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. If you do not have access
to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR
Reference staff at 1–(800) 397–4209,
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
6150
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2012 / Notices
(301) 415–4737 or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment:
August 16, 2011, supplemented by letter
dated October 6, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section
5.5.14, ‘‘Containment Leak Rate Testing
Program’’ to increase the value of the
calculated peak containment internal
pressure from 53 pounds per square
inch gauge (psig) to 54.2 psig. This
increase is due to an increase in the
calculated mass and energy release
during the blowdown phase of the
design basis loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA). The increase in the predicted
mass and energy release is due to the
correction of an error in the calculation
of the current value of Pa. The
regulations at 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
J Option B define Pa as the calculated
peak containment internal pressure
related to the design basis LOCA as
specified in the TS and specifies the
requirements for containment leakage
rate testing.
Date of issuance: January 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 244.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
20: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 15, 2011, (76 FR
70773). The supplemental letters
contained clarifying information and
did not change the initial no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and did not expand the scope of the
original Federal Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated January 19,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment:
March 7, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the facility’s
Technical Specifications to add an
applicability period of 42.1 effective
full-power years to the existing
pressure-temperature limit curves and
low temperature overpressure
protection system requirements for PNP.
Date of issuance: January 19, 2012.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:34 Feb 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 245.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
20: Amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 17, 2011, (76 FR 28472).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated January 19,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment:
February 7, 2011, as supplemented on
December 22, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the Technical
Specifications, Section 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling System]—
Operating,’’ and 3.5.2, ‘‘ECCS—
Shutdown,’’ to increase the minimum
flow rate of the core spray pumps from
≥2,800 gallons per minute (gpm) to
≥2,835 gpm.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2012.
Effective date: This license
amendment is effective as of the date of
its issuance, to be implemented within
120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 167.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
22: Amendment revised the Renewed
Facility Operating License and
Appendix A, Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21923).
The licensee’s supplemental letter
contained clarifying information, did
not change the scope of the original
license amendment request, did not
change the NRC staff’s initial proposed
finding of no significant hazards
consideration determination, and did
not expand the scope of the original
Federal Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated January 11,
2012.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of January 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–2594 Filed 2–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0002]
Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting
Weeks of February 6, 13, 20, 27,
March 5, 12, 2012.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
DATE:
Week of February 6, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
3:30 p.m.—Briefing on International
Issues (Closed—Ex. 1).
Thursday, February 9, 2012
9 a.m.—Briefing on Status of Outreach
and Educational Efforts with External
Stakeholders Related to the Safety
Culture Policy Statement (Public
Meeting) (Contact: Diane Sieracki, (301)
415-3297).
This meeting will be Web cast live at
the Web address—www.nrc.gov.
12 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative).
a. Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. and
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc
(Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station). Docket
No. 50–293–LR (Tentative).
b. Southern Nuclear Operating Co.
(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units
3 and 4), Docket Nos. 52–025–COL &
52–026–COL—Draft Mandatory Hearing
Decision (Tentative).
This meeting will be Web cast live at
the Web address—www.nrc.gov.
Week of February 13, 2012—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of February 13, 2012.
Week of February 20, 2012—Tentative
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
9 a.m.—Briefing on Fort Calhoun
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Jeff Clark,
(817) 860–8147).
This meeting will be Web cast live at
the Web address—www.nrc.gov.
Week of February 27, 2012—Tentative
Tuesday, February 28, 2012.
9:30 a.m.—Briefing on the Threat
Environment Assessment (Closed—Ex.
1).
Week of March 5, 2012—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of March 5, 2012.
Week of March 12, 2012—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of March 12, 2012.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6144-6150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2594]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0025]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from January 12, 2012 to January 25, 2012. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 24, 2012 (77 FR 3508).
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0025 in the subject line
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2012-0025. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: (301) 492-3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
[[Page 6145]]
Fax comments to: RADB at (301) 492-3446.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, https://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2012-0025.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (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; (2) create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be
filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s)
should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20874. The NRC's
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the
NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If
a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by
the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an
appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one
[[Page 6146]]
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139,
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification
(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software,
and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance
in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-(866) 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the
[[Page 6147]]
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available online through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209,
(301) 415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: July 27, 2011, as supplemented by letter
dated September 16, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ``Primary Containment and Drywell
Isolation Instrumentation,'' to revise the allowable value setpoints
for the Main Steam Tunnel Temperature functions. Specifically, the
amendment would modify TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, items; 1.e, ``Main Steam
Tunnel Temperature-High,'' 3.f. ``Main Steam Line Tunnel Ambient
Temperature-High,'' and 4.h, ``Main Steam Line Tunnel Ambient
Temperature-High.'' This setpoint revision is based upon a revision to
the analytical limit calculation. The change will provide additional
margin for elevated temperatures in the Main Steam Tunnel--North during
the summer reliability period. In addition, the amendment would revise
the River Bend Station (RBS) Emergency Plan by modifying the Emergency
Action Levels (EAL) in support of the proposed changes to TS 3.3.6.1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change increases the Technical Specification
allowable value for the main steam tunnel ambient temperature
isolation instrumentation for the main steam line isolation, Reactor
Core Isolation Cooling System isolation and the Reactor Water
Cleanup System isolation. This TS change does not introduce the
possibility of an increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident because the basis for the instrument setpoint is not being
changed as a result of this request. The proposed TS change involves
no physical alteration of the plant. The proposed TS change does not
degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to, any
safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not
significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident. The basis for the main steam tunnel
ambient temperature isolation instrumentation has not changed as a
result of this proposed Allowable value change.
The proposed change to the Emergency Action Level (EAL) does not
increase the probability of an accident. The change only impacts the
initial condition for entry into the Emergency Plan and thus has no
impact on the probability of an event. The proposed change to the
Emergency Action Level (EAL) does not increase the consequences of
an accident. As described in the Technical Analysis the revised
setpoint continues to support the current licensing basis and event
analysis.
Because the process, personnel, and equipment involved in
implementing the Emergency Plan would complete the same functions as
those completed under the existing Emergency Plan, the plan would
continue to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
As discussed above, the proposed change involves increasing the
TS allowable value for the main steam tunnel ambient temperature
isolation instrumentation for the main steam line isolation, Reactor
Core Isolation Cooling System isolation and the Reactor Water
Cleanup System isolation. The proposed TS change does not introduce
any failure mechanisms of a different type than those previously
evaluated, since there are no physical changes being made to the
facility. No new or different equipment is being installed. No
installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. The
computer program being used has been previously used and reviewed.
As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no
new types of failures or new or different kinds of accidents or
transients that could be created by these changes.
The change affects the implementation of the Emergency Plan by
changing the EALs temperature value for entry into the Emergency
Plan; however, the basis for the temperature value is not changed.
The change to the EAL does not impact any plant equipment or systems
needed to respond to an accident, nor does it change the results of
an analysis of plant accident consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
As discussed above, the proposed change involves increasing the
TS allowable value for the for the main steam tunnel ambient
temperature isolation instrumentation, the main steam line
isolation, the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System isolation and
the Reactor Water Cleanup System isolation. The effect of this
change on system availability is not significant, based on the
determination that the basis for the allowable values is not being
revised. The proposed change does not adversely affect the condition
or performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon
for accident mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any
hardware changes. Existing operating margin between plant conditions
and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced due to these
changes. The proposed change does not significantly impact any
safety analysis assumptions or results.
The change to the Emergency Plan does not reduce the margin of
safety currently provided by the plan. As discussed in this
submittal the change does not revise the design criteria of
detecting a 25 gpm [gallon per minute] leak. Also the methods used
to determine the revised analytical limit and setpoint values are
currently' accepted. The proposed change does not impact other
design basis evaluations or consequences. Therefore the changes do
not affect a margin of safety identified in the plant accident
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--
[[Page 6148]]
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: January 23, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.7, ``Standby Liquid Control (SLC)
System.'' Implementation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) Cycle
19 core design results in increased core reactivity, which requires a
corresponding increase in negative reactivity to be provided by the SLC
system. The proposed TS changes reflect the change in the enrichment of
the boron-10 (B-10) isotope in the sodium pentaborate (SPB) solution,
which is the credited neutron absorber. Increasing the enrichment of
the B-10 isotope in the SPB solution effectively increases the
available negative reactivity inserted by the SLC system without having
to increase the system's storage capacity. The proposed change is
needed to ensure appropriate shutdown margin can be maintained during
reload design for future cycles beginning with Cycle 19. In addition,
TS 3.1.7 will be modified from a graphical limiting condition for
operation (LCO) to an LCO based on the product of the SPB solution
concentration (C) and the B-10 enrichment (E) in the SPB solution being
greater than or equal to 420.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The SLC system is designed to provide the capability of bringing
the reactor, at any time in a fuel cycle, from full power and
minimum control rod inventory to a subcritical condition with the
reactor in the most reactive xenon-free state without taking credit
for control rod movement. The SLC system design satisfies the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.62, Requirements for the Reduction of Risk
from Anticipated Transients without Scram (ATWS) Events for Light-
Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. The proposed changes to the SPB
solution requirements maintain the capability of the SLC system to
perform this reactivity control function and ensure continued
compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.62.
The SLC system is not considered to be an initiator of any
event. The use of the proposed SPB solution enriched with the B-10
isotope does not alter the design, function, or operation of the SLC
system or increase the likelihood of a system malfunction that could
increase the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the SLC system do not alter the design,
function, or operation of the SLC system. The proposed change in SPB
concentration, B-10 enrichment, SPB storage volume, and pump
discharge pressure will continue to ensure shutdown of the reactor
in the most reactive xenon-free state without taking credit for
control rod movement. The proposed change in solution temperature
continues to ensure the boron remains in solution and does not
precipitate out of the SLC storage tank or in the SLC piping. The
change in solution temperature also ensures adequate net positive
suction head is available for SLC pump operation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
In the event of injection, the proposed change results in an
increase in the margin between the final B-10 concentration in the
reactor vessel and concentration required for shutdown. Thus, the
proposed change results in additional safety margin being provided.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos.: 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.7.2 for the plant service water (PSW) and ultimate heat sink
(UHS). Specifically, surveillance requirement (SR) 3.7.2.1 minimum
water level in each PSW pump well of the intake structure would be
revised from the existing value of 60.7 feet (ft) mean sea level (MSL)
to 60.5 ft MSL. This change is based on updated design basis analyses
that demonstrate that at the new minimum level of 60.5 ft MSL
sufficient water inventory remains available from the Altamaha River
for PSW and residual heat removal service water (RHRSW) to handle Loss
of Coolant Accident (LOCA) cooling requirements for 30 days post-
accident with no additional makeup water source available.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulation (10 CFR), Section 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the ultimate heat sink (UHS) is
OPERABLE by ensuring the water level in the PSW pump well of the
intake structure is sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW, and standby
service water pumps to supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30
days. The safety function of the UHS is to mitigate the impact of an
accident. The proposed TS change does not result in or require any
physical changes to HNP systems, structures, and components,
including those intended for the prevention of accidents. The
potential impact of the lower PSW pump well minimum water level on
pump operation requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA,
and potential environmental impact have been evaluated and found to
be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 6149]]
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring
the water level in the PSW pump well of the intake structure is
sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby service water pumps to
supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days. The proposed TS
change does not result in or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level on pump operation
requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring
the water level in the PSW pump well of the intake structure is
sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby service water pumps to
supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days. The proposed TS
change does not result in or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level on pump operation
requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-425, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2011.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise technical specification (TS) 3.7.14 ``Engineered Safety Features
(ESF) Room Cooler and Safety-Related Chiller.'' Specifically, the
limiting condition of operation (LCO) allowed completion time for TS
3.7.14 Condition A would be extended from 72 hours to 9 days, on a one-
time only basis. Also proposed is an editorial change to delete a note
added as an emergency change to TS 3.7.14, which had been added in
response to an emergency license amendment request dated August 18,
2010 (Agencywide Document Access and Management System Accession No.
ML102300574).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulation (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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not alter any plant equipment or
operating practices in such a manner that the probability of an
accident is increased. The proposed changes will not alter
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient
event. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of
the plant or significant change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?
Based on the operability of the remaining ESF Room Cooler and
Safety-Related Chiller Train 2A, the accident analysis assumptions
continue to be met with enactment of the proposed changes. The
system design and operation are not affected by the proposed
changes. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not altered by
the proposed changes. Finally, the proposed compensatory measures
will provide further assurance that no significant reduction in a
safety margin will occur.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Arthur H. Domby, Troutman Sanders,
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 5200, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30308-2216.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy Salgado.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible online through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-(800) 397-4209,
[[Page 6150]]
(301) 415-4737 or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: August 16, 2011, supplemented by
letter dated October 6, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.14, ``Containment Leak Rate
Testing Program'' to increase the value of the calculated peak
containment internal pressure from 53 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) to 54.2 psig. This increase is due to an increase in the
calculated mass and energy release during the blowdown phase of the
design basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). The increase in the
predicted mass and energy release is due to the correction of an error
in the calculation of the current value of Pa. The
regulations at 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Option B define Pa
as the calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the
design basis LOCA as specified in the TS and specifies the requirements
for containment leakage rate testing.
Date of issuance: January 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 244.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 15, 2011, (76
FR 70773). The supplemental letters contained clarifying information
and did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration
determination, and did not expand the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 19, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: March 7, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the
facility's Technical Specifications to add an applicability period of
42.1 effective full-power years to the existing pressure-temperature
limit curves and low temperature overpressure protection system
requirements for PNP.
Date of issuance: January 19, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 245.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 17, 2011, (76 FR
28472).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 19, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: February 7, 2011, as
supplemented on December 22, 2011.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specifications, Section 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating,'' and 3.5.2, ``ECCS--Shutdown,'' to increase the minimum
flow rate of the core spray pumps from >=2,800 gallons per minute (gpm)
to >=2,835 gpm.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2012.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance, to be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 167.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Appendix A, Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR
21923).
The licensee's supplemental letter contained clarifying
information, did not change the scope of the original license amendment
request, did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration determination, and did not expand the
scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of January 2012.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-2594 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P