Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3; Application and Amendment to Facility Operating License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 49463-49472 [2012-20114]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
National Science Board; Sunshine Act
Meetings
The National Science Board, pursuant
to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614),
the National Science Foundation Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in
regard to the scheduling of a
teleconference meeting of the National
Science Board for the transaction of
National Science Board business.
AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National
Science Board.
DATE AND TIME: Thursday, August 23,
2012 from 1:00–2:00 p.m.
SUBJECT MATTER: Chairman’s remarks,
discussion of Advanced Laser
Interferometer Gravitational Wave
Observatory (AdvLIGO) Construction
Project Change in Scope, and discussion
of and action on closed committee
reports.
STATUS: Closed.
PLACE: This meeting will be held by
teleconference originating at the
National Science Board Office, National
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22230.
UPDATES: Please refer to the National
Science Board Web site www.nsf.gov/
nsb for additional information. Meeting
information and schedule updates (time,
place, subject matter or status of
meeting) may be found at https://
www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/.
AGENCY CONTACT: Ann Ferrante,
aferrant@nsf.gov, (703) 292–7000.
Ann Bushmiller,
NSB Senior Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012–20198 Filed 8–14–12; 11:15 am]
SUBJECT MATTER: Chairman’s remarks,
consideration and approval of the
National Science Foundation FY 2014
budget.
STATUS: Closed.
PLACE: This meeting will be held by
teleconference originating at the
National Science Board Office, National
Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22230.
UPDATES: Please refer to the National
Science Board Web site www.nsf.gov/
nsb for additional information. Meeting
information and schedule updates (time,
place, subject matter or status of
meeting) may be found at https://
www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/.
AGENCY CONTACT: Jacqueline Meszaros,
jmeszaro@nsf.gov, (703) 292–7000.
Ann Bushmiller,
NSB Senior Legal Counsel.
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
A. Accessing Information
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362; NRC–
2012–0192]
Southern California Edison, San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3; Application and
Amendment to Facility Operating
License Involving Proposed No
Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request;
opportunity to comment, request a
hearing and petition for leave to
intervene.
AGENCY:
Comments must be filed by
September 17, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 15,
2012.
DATES:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
National Science Board; Sunshine Act
Meetings
The National Science Board, pursuant
to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614),
the National Science Foundation Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in
regard to the scheduling of a
teleconference meeting of the
Committee on Strategy and Budget for
the transaction of National Science
Board business.
AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: National
Science Board.
DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, August 21,
2012 from 5:00–6:00 p.m.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–1132; email:
Joseph.Sebrosky@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2012–20197 Filed 8–14–12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
49463
You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and are publicly available, by
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID NRC–2012–0192. You
may submit comments by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0192. 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
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2012–
0192 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
information related to this document,
which the NRC possesses and are
publicly available, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2012–0192.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced. The application
for amendment, dated July 29, 2011 is
available electronically under ADAMS
Accession No. ML112510214.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2012–
0192 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
49464
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
Volume 1 .....
II. Introduction
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information in
comment submissions that you do not
want to be publicly disclosed. The NRC
posts all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as
enters the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information in
their comment submissions that they do
not want to be publicly disclosed. Your
request should state that the NRC will
not edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making
the comment submissions available to
the public or entering the comment
submissions into ADAMS.
Volume 13 ...
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
10 and NPF–15 issued to Southern
California Edison Company (SCE, the
licensee) for operation of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),
Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego
County, California.
The licensee submitted a license
amendment request (LAR) for SONGS,
Units 2 and 3, dated July 29, 2011,
requesting approval to convert the
Current Technical Specifications (CTS)
to be consistent with the most recently
approved version of the Standard
Technical Specifications (STS) for
Combustion Engineering Plants,
NUREG–1432. In 1996, SONGS was the
first plant to adopt the STS for
Combustion Engineering plants
(NUREG–1432, Revision 0). Over time, a
number of changes and revisions have
been made to those STS, and this LAR
seeks to update the SONGS CTS to the
Improved STS (ITS) reflected in
NUREG–1432, Revision 3, with the
additional adoption of some recent
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) travelers. The LAR also includes
beyond scope changes that are beyond
the scope of the ITS as described in
NUREG–1432, Revision 3, and beyond
the scope of the SONGS CTS.
Attachment 1 of the LAR contains 15
volumes; Volumes 1–14 provide a
detailed description of the proposed
changes to the following ITS Chapters
and Sections:
Volume 14 ...
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Volume 2 .....
Volume 3 .....
Volume 4 .....
Volume 5 .....
Volume 6 .....
Volume 7 .....
Volume 8 .....
Volume 9 .....
Volume 10 ...
Volume 11 ...
Volume 12 ...
ITS Chapter 1.0, Use and Application
ITS Chapter 2.0, Safety Limits
(SLs)
ITS Section 3.0, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
Applicability and Surveillance Requirement (SR) Applicability
ITS Section 3.1, Reactivity
Control Systems
ITS Section 3.2, Power Distribution Limits
ITS Section 3.3, Instrumentation
ITS Section 3.4, Reactor Coolant System (RCS)
ITS Section 3.5, Emergency
Core Cooling Systems
(ECCS)
ITS Section 3.6, Containment
Systems
ITS Section 3.7, Plant Systems
ITS Section 3.8, Electrical
Power Systems
ITS Section 3.9, Refueling Operations
ITS Chapter 4.0, Design Features
ITS Chapter 5.0, Administrative Controls
Enclosure 2 of the LAR provides a
description of the three beyond scope
changes, and Enclosure 3 includes a list
of the TSTFs that would be adopted in
whole or in part in the proposed
amendment.
This notice is based on the LAR dated
July 29, 2011, and the information
provided to the NRC through the San
Onofre ITS Conversion Web page hosted
by Excel Services Corporation at https://
www.excelservices.com. To expedite the
review of the application, the NRC staff
issued or will issue its requests for
additional information (RAIs) and the
licensee addressed or will address the
RAIs through the ITS Conversion Web
page. Entry into the database is
protected so that only the licensee and
NRC reviewers can enter information
into the database to add RAIs (NRC) or
provide responses to the RAIs (the
licensee); however, the public can enter
the database to read the questions asked
and the responses provided. To be in
compliance with the regulations for
written communications for LARs and
to have the database on the SONGS
dockets before the amendments would
be issued, the licensee will provide a
copy of the database in a submittal to
the NRC after there are no future RAIs
and before the amendments can be
issued. The RAIs and responses to RAIs
are organized by ITS Section.
The licensee has classified each
proposed change to the SONGS CTS
into one of the following five categories
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(with its letter designator within
brackets):
• Administrative changes (A)—
Changes to the CTS that do not result in
new requirements or change operational
restrictions or flexibility. These changes
are supported in aggregate by a single
generic no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC).
• More restrictive changes (M)—
Changes to the CTS that result in added
restrictions or reduced flexibility. These
changes are supported in aggregate by a
single generic NSHC.
• Relocated specifications (R)—
Changes to the CTS that relocate
specifications that do not meet the
selection criteria of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
50.36(c)(2)(ii). These changes are
supported in aggregate by a single
generic NSHC.
• Removed detail changes (LA)—
Changes to the CTS that eliminate detail
and relocate the detail to a licenseecontrolled document. Typically, this
involves details of system design and
function, or procedural detail on
methods of conducting a Surveillance
Requirement (SR). These changes are
supported in aggregate by a single
generic NSHC.
• Less restrictive changes (L)—
Changes to the CTS that result in
reduced restrictions or added flexibility.
These changes are supported either in
aggregate by a generic NSHC that
addresses a particular category of less
restrictive change, or by a specific
NSHC if the change does not fall into
one of the eight categories of less
restrictive changes. The eight categories
of less restrictive changes are designated
as:
—Category 1—Relaxation of LCO
Requirements
—Category 2—Relaxation of
Applicability
—Category 3—Relaxation of Completion
Time
—Category 4—Relaxation of Required
Action
—Category 5—Deletion of Surveillance
Requirement
—Category 6—Relaxation of
Surveillance Requirement Acceptance
Criteria
—Category 7—Relaxation of
Surveillance Frequency
—Category 8—Deletion of Reporting
Requirements
If the less restrictive change is
covered by a generic NSHC, the category
of the change is identified in italics at
the beginning of the discussion of
changes (DOCs) in the LAR.
The three less restrictive changes
covered by a specific NSHC are
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
described in the LAR in ITS 1.0, ‘‘Use
and Applications,’’ Less Restrictive
Change L01 (Attachment 1, Volume 1,
page 112), and ITS 3.0, ‘‘LCO and SR
Applicability,’’ Less Restrictive Changes
L01 and L02 (Attachment 1, Volume 3,
pages 2 and 4, respectively).
Administrative Changes. Some of the
proposed changes involve reformatting,
renumbering, and rewording of CTS
with no change in intent. These
changes, since they do not involve
technical changes to the CTS, are
administrative. This type of change is
connected with the movement of
requirements within the current
requirements, or with the modification
of wording that does not affect the
technical content of the CTS. These
changes also include non-technical
modifications of requirements to
conform to TSTF–GG–05–01, ‘‘Writer’s
Guide for Plant-Specific Improved
Standard Technical Specifications,’’ or
provide consistency with the ITS in
NUREG–1432. Administrative changes
are not intended to add, delete, or
relocate any technical requirements of
the CTS.
More Restrictive Changes. Some of the
proposed changes involve adding more
restrictive requirements to the CTS by
either making current requirements
more stringent or by adding new
requirements that currently do not exist.
These changes include additional
requirements that decrease allowed
outage times, increase the Frequency of
Surveillances, impose additional
Surveillances, increase the scope of
Specifications to include additional
plant equipment, increase the
Applicability of Specifications, or
provide additional actions. These
changes are generally made to conform
to NUREG–1432 and have been
evaluated to not be detrimental to plant
safety.
Relocated Specifications. Some of the
proposed changes involve relocating
CTS LCOs to licensee-controlled
documents. SCE has evaluated the CTS
using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR
50.36. Specifications identified by this
evaluation that did not meet the
retention requirements specified in the
regulation are not included in the ITS.
These specifications have been
relocated from the CTS to either the
Licensee Controlled Specification (LCS),
which is currently incorporated by
reference into the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) or the UFSAR.
Removed Detail Changes. Some of the
proposed changes involve moving
details out of the CTS and into the TS
Bases, the UFSAR, the Containment
Leakage Rate Testing (CLRT) Program,
the LCS, or other documents under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
regulatory control, such as the Offsite
Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), the
Quality Assurance Program (QAP), the
Inservice Testing (IST) Program, the
Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program, and
the Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP). The removal of this
information is considered to be less
restrictive because it is no longer
controlled by the TS change process.
Typically, the information moved is
descriptive in nature and its removal
conforms to NUREG–1432 for format
and content.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
1—Relaxation of LCO Requirements.
Some of the proposed changes involve
relaxation of the CTS Limiting
Conditions for Operation (LCOs) by the
elimination of specific items from the
LCO or Tables referenced in the LCO, or
the addition of exceptions to the LCO.
These changes reflect the ITS approach
to provide LCO requirements that
specify the protective conditions that
are required to meet safety analysis
assumptions for required features. These
conditions replace the lists of specific
devices used in the CTS to describe the
requirements needed to meet the safety
analysis assumptions. The ITS also
includes LCO Notes which allow
exceptions to the LCO for the
performance of testing or other
operational needs. The ITS provides the
protection required by the safety
analysis, and provides flexibility for
meeting the conditions without
adversely affecting operations since
equivalent features are required to be
OPERABLE. The ITS is also consistent
with the plant current licensing basis, as
may be modified in the discussion of
individual changes. These changes are
generally made to conform with
NUREG–1432, and have been evaluated
to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
2—Relaxation of Applicability. Some of
the proposed changes involve relaxation
of the applicability of CTS LCOs by
reducing the conditions under which
the LCO requirements must be met. CTS
requirements are being eliminated
during conditions for which the safety
function of the specified safety system
is met because the feature is performing
its intended safety function. Deleting
applicability requirements that are
indeterminate or which are inconsistent
with application of accident analyses
assumptions is acceptable because when
LCOs cannot be met, the ITS may be
satisfied by exiting the applicability
which takes the plant out of the
conditions that require the safety system
to be OPERABLE. This change provides
the protection required by the safety
analyses, and provides flexibility for
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49465
meeting limits by restricting the
application of the limits to the
conditions assumed in the safety
analyses. The ITS is also consistent with
the plant current licensing basis, as may
be modified in the discussion of
individual changes. The change is
generally made to conform with
NUREG–1432, and has been evaluated
to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
3—Relaxation of Completion Time.
Some of the proposed changes involve
relaxation of the Completion Times for
Required Actions in the CTS. Upon
discovery of a failure to meet an LCO,
the ITS specifies times for completing
Required Actions of the associated
Conditions. Required Actions of the
associated Conditions are used to
establish remedial measures that must
be taken within specified Completion
Times. These times define limits during
which operation in a degraded
condition is permitted. Adopting
Completion Times from the ITS is
acceptable because the Completion
Times take into account the
OPERABILITY status of the redundant
systems of required features, the
capacity and capability of remaining
features, a reasonable time for repairs or
replacement of required features, and
the low probability of a Design Basis
Accident (DBA) occurring during the
repair period. In addition, the ITS
provides consistent Completion Times
for similar conditions. These changes
are generally made to conform with
NUREG–1432, and have been evaluated
to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
4—Relaxation of Required Action. Some
of the proposed changes involve
relaxation of the Required Actions in
the CTS. Upon discovery of a failure to
meet an LCO, the ITS specifies Required
Actions to complete for the associated
Conditions. Required Actions of the
associated Conditions are used to
establish remedial measures that must
be taken in response to the degraded
conditions. These actions minimize the
risk associated with continued
operation while providing time to repair
inoperable features. Some of the
Required Actions are modified to place
the plant in a MODE in which the LCO
does not apply. Adopting Required
Actions from NUREG–1432 is
acceptable because the Required
Actions take into account the
OPERABILITY status of redundant
systems of required features, the
capacity and capability of the remaining
features, and the compensatory
attributes of the Required Actions as
compared to the LCO requirements.
These changes are generally made to
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49466
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
conform with NUREG–1432, and have
been evaluated to not be detrimental to
plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
5—Deletion of Surveillance
Requirement. Some of the proposed
changes involve deletion of SRs in the
CTS. The CTS require safety systems to
be tested and verified OPERABLE prior
to entering applicable operating
conditions. The ITS eliminates
unnecessary CTS SRs that do not
contribute to verification that the
equipment used to meet the LCO can
perform its required functions. Thus,
appropriate equipment continues to be
tested in a manner and at a frequency
necessary to give confidence that the
equipment can perform its assumed
safety functions. These changes are
generally made to conform with
NUREG–1432, and have been evaluated
to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
6—Relaxation of Surveillance
Requirement Acceptance Criteria. Some
of the proposed changes involve the
relaxation of SRs acceptance criteria in
the CTS. The CTS require safety systems
to be tested and verified OPERABLE
prior to entering applicable operating
conditions. The ITS eliminates or
relaxes the SR acceptance criteria that
do not contribute to verification that the
equipment used to meet the LCO can
perform its required functions. For
example, the ITS allows some SRs to
verify OPERABILITY under actual or
test conditions. Adopting the ITS
allowance for ‘‘actual’’ conditions is
acceptable because required features
cannot distinguish between an ‘‘actual’’
signal or a ‘‘test’’ signal. Also included
are changes to CTS requirements that
are replaced in the ITS with separate
and distinct testing requirements that
when combined, include OPERABILITY
verification of all components required
in the LCO for the features specified in
the CTS. Adopting this format
preference in the ITS is acceptable
because SRs that remain include testing
of all previous features required to be
verified OPERABLE. Changes that
provide exceptions to SRs to provide for
variations that do not affect the results
of the test are also included in this
category. These changes are generally
made to conform with NUREG–1432,
and have been evaluated to not be
detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
7—Relaxation of Surveillance
Frequency. Some of the proposed
changes involve the relaxation of
Surveillance Frequencies in the CTS.
CTS and ITS Surveillance Frequencies
specify time interval requirements for
performing Surveillance tests.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Increasing the time interval between
Surveillance tests in the ITS results in
decreased equipment unavailability due
to testing which also increases
equipment availability. In general, the
ITS contain Surveillance Frequencies
that are consistent with industry
practice or industry standards for
achieving acceptable levels of
equipment reliability. Adopting testing
practices specified in the ITS is
acceptable based on similar design, likecomponent testing for the system
application and the availability of other
ITS requirements which provide regular
checks to ensure limits are met.
Relaxation of Surveillance Frequency
can also include the addition of
Surveillance Notes which allow testing
to be delayed until appropriate unit
conditions for the test are established, or
exempt testing in certain MODES or
specified conditions in which the
testing cannot be performed.
Reduced testing can result in a safety
enhancement because the unavailability
due to testing is reduced, and reliability
of the affected structure, system or
component should remain constant or
increase. Reduced testing is acceptable
where operating experience, industry
practice, or the industry standards such
as manufacturers’ recommendations
have shown that these components
usually pass the Surveillance when
performed at the specified interval, thus
the Surveillance Frequency is
acceptable from a reliability standpoint.
Surveillance Frequency changes to
incorporate alternate train testing have
been shown to be acceptable where
other qualitative or quantitative test
requirements are required that are
established predictors of system
performance. Surveillance Frequency
extensions can be based on NRCapproved topical reports. The NRC staff
has accepted topical report analyses that
bound the plant-specific design and
component reliability assumptions.
These changes are generally made to
conform with NUREG–1432, and have
been evaluated to not be detrimental to
plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category
8—Deletion of Reporting Requirements.
Some of the proposed changes involve
the deletion of requirements in the CTS
to send reports to the NRC. The CTS
includes requirements to submit reports
to the NRC under certain circumstances.
However, the ITS eliminates these
requirements for many such reports and,
in many cases, relies on the reporting
requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 or other
regulatory requirements. The ITS
changes to reporting requirements are
acceptable because the regulations
provide adequate reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements, or the reports do not
affect continued plant operation.
Therefore, this change has no effect on
the safe operation of the plant. These
changes are generally made to conform
with NUREG–1432, and have been
evaluated to not be detrimental to plant
safety.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves 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; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of NSHC, by
classification of change, which is
presented below. The generic proposed
NSHC, by classification of change, are
listed first, followed by the specific
proposed NSHC related to ITS Chapter
1.0 Less Restrictive Change L01, ITS
Section 3.0 Less Restrictive Change L01,
and ITS Section 3.0 Less Restrictive
change L02 (changes that do not fall into
one of the eight categories of less
restrictive changes).
Generic Proposed NSHC
Administrative Changes
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves
reformatting, renumbering, and rewording
the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and
rewording process involves no technical
changes to the CTS. As such, this change is
administrative in nature and does not affect
initiators of analyzed events or assumed
mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
different type of equipment will be installed)
or changes in methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change will
not impose any new or eliminate any old
requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a
margin of safety because it has no effect on
any safety analyses assumptions. This change
is administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
More Restrictive Changes
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides more
stringent Technical Specification
requirements for the facility. These more
stringent requirements do not result in
operations that significantly increase the
probability of initiating an analyzed event,
and do not alter assumptions relative to
mitigation of an accident or transient event.
The more restrictive requirements continue
to ensure process variables, structures,
systems, and components are maintained
consistent with the safety analyses and
licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or changes in methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change does
impose different Technical Specification
requirements. However, these changes are
consistent with the assumptions in the safety
analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The imposition of more restrictive
requirements either has no effect on or
increases the margin of plant safety. As
provided in the discussion of change, each
change in this category is, by definition,
providing additional restrictions to enhance
plant safety. The change maintains
requirements within the safety analyses and
licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Relocated Specifications
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates
requirements and Surveillances for
structures, systems, components, or variables
that do not meet the criteria of 10 CFR
50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion in Technical
Specifications as identified in the
Application of Selection Criteria to the
SONGS Technical Specifications. The
affected structures, systems, components or
variables are not assumed to be initiators of
analyzed events and are not assumed to
mitigate accident or transient events. The
requirements and Surveillances for these
affected structures, systems, components, or
variables will be relocated from the CTS to
the LCS, which is currently incorporated by
reference into the UFSAR, thus it will be
maintained pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The
UFSAR is subject to the change control
provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR
50.71(e). In addition, the affected structures,
systems, components, or variables are
addressed in existing surveillance procedures
which are also controlled by 10 CFR 50.59,
and are subject to the change control
provisions imposed by plant administrative
procedures, which endorse applicable
regulations and standards.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change will
not impose or eliminate any requirements,
and adequate control of existing
requirements will be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a
margin of safety because it has no significant
effect on any safety analyses assumptions, as
indicated by the fact that the requirements do
not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 criteria for
retention. In addition, the relocated
requirements are moved without change, and
any future changes to these requirements will
be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59.
NRC prior review and approval of changes
to these relocated requirements, in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, will no longer
be required. This review and approval does
not provide a specific margin of safety that
can be evaluated. However, the proposed
change is consistent with NUREG–1432,
issued by the NRC, which allows revising the
CTS to relocate these requirements and
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49467
Surveillances to a licensee controlled
document.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
Removed Detail Changes
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates certain
details from the CTS to other documents
under regulatory control. The Technical
Specification Bases and the LCS, which is
currently incorporated by reference into the
UFSAR, will be maintained in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.59. In addition to 10 CFR
50.59 provisions, the Technical Specification
Bases are subject to the change control
provisions in the Administrative Controls
Chapter of the ITS. The UFSAR is subject to
the change control provisions of 10 CFR
50.59 and 10 CFR 50.71(e). Other documents
are subject to controls imposed by the ITS or
other regulations. Since any changes to these
documents will be evaluated, no significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated will be
allowed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operations. The proposed change will
not impose or eliminate any requirements,
and adequate control of the information will
be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a
margin of safety because it has no effect on
any assumption of the safety analyses. In
addition, the details to be moved from the
CTS to other documents are not being
changed. Since any future changes to these
details will be evaluated under the applicable
regulatory change control mechanism, no
significant reduction in a margin of safety
will be allowed. A significant reduction in
the margin of safety is not associated with the
elimination of the 10 CFR 50.90 requirement
for NRC review and approval of future
changes to the relocated details. Not
including these details in the Technical
Specifications is consistent with NUREG–
1432, issued by the NRC, which allows
revising the Technical Specifications to
relocate these requirements and
Surveillances to a licensee controlled
document controlled by 10 CFR 50.59, 10
CFR 50.71(e), or other Technical
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49468
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
Specification controlled or regulation
controlled documents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 1—
Relaxation of LCO Requirements
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides less
restrictive LCO requirements for operation of
the facility. These less restrictive LCO
requirements do not result in operation that
will significantly increase the probability of
initiating an analyzed event and do not alter
assumptions relative to mitigation of an
accident or transient event in that the
requirements continue to ensure process
variables, structures, systems, and
components are maintained consistent with
the current safety analyses and licensing
basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change does
impose different requirements. However, the
change is consistent with the assumptions in
the current safety analyses and licensing
basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The imposition of less restrictive LCO
requirements does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety. As
provided in the discussion of change, this
change has been evaluated to ensure that the
current safety analyses and licensing basis
requirements are maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 2—
Relaxation of Applicability
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes the
conditions under which the LCO
requirements for operation of the facility
must be met. These less restrictive
applicability requirements for the LCOs do
not result in operation that will significantly
increase the probability of initiating an
analyzed event and do not alter assumptions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
relative to mitigation of an accident or
transient event in that the requirements
continue to ensure that process variables,
structures, systems, and components are
maintained in the MODES and other
specified conditions assumed in the safety
analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change does
impose different requirements. However, the
requirements are consistent with the
assumptions in the safety analyses and
licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed applicability of LCO
requirements does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety. As
provided in the discussion of change, this
change has been evaluated to ensure that the
LCO requirements are applied in the MODES
and specified conditions assumed in the
safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 3—
Relaxation of Completion Time
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes the
Completion Time for a Required Action.
Required Actions and their associated
Completion Times are not initiating
conditions for any accident previously
evaluated, and the accident analyses do not
assume that required equipment is out of
service prior to the analyzed event.
Consequently, the relaxed Completion Time
does not significantly increase the probability
of any accident previously evaluated. The
consequences of an analyzed accident during
the relaxed Completion Time are the same as
the consequences during the existing
Completion Time. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the method governing normal
plant operation. The Required Actions and
associated Completion Times in the ITS have
been evaluated to ensure that no new
accident initiators are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed Completion Time for a
Required Action does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
As provided in the discussion of change, the
change has been evaluated to ensure that the
allowed Completion Time is consistent with
safe operation under the specified Condition,
considering the OPERABILITY status of the
redundant systems of required features, the
capacity and capability of remaining features,
a reasonable time for repairs or replacement
of required features, and the low probability
of a DBA occurring during the repair period.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 4—
Relaxation of Required Action
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes Required
Actions. Required Actions and their
associated Completion Times are not
initiating conditions for any accident
previously evaluated, and the accident
analyses do not assume that required
equipment is out of service prior to the
analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed
Required Actions do not significantly
increase the probability of any accident
previously evaluated. The Required Actions
in the ITS have been developed to provide
appropriate remedial actions to be taken in
response to the degraded condition
considering the OPERABILITY status of the
redundant systems of required features, and
the capacity and capability of remaining
features while minimizing the risk associated
with continued operation. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The Required Actions and
associated Completion Times in the ITS have
been evaluated to ensure that no new
accident initiators are introduced.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed Required Actions do not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety. As provided in the discussion of
change, this change has been evaluated to
minimize the risk of continued operation
under the specified Condition, considering
the OPERABILITY status of the redundant
systems of required features, the capacity and
capability of remaining features, a reasonable
time for repairs or replacement of required
features, and the low probability of a Design
Basis Accident (DBA) occurring during the
repair period.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 5—
Deletion of Surveillance Requirement
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change deletes Surveillance
Requirements. Surveillances are not initiators
to any accident previously evaluated.
Consequently, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly
increased. The equipment being tested is still
required to be OPERABLE and capable of
performing the accident mitigation functions
assumed in the accident analyses. As a result,
the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The remaining Surveillance
Requirements are consistent with industry
practice, and are considered sufficient to
prevent the removal of the subject
Surveillances from creating a new or
different type of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The deleted Surveillance Requirements do
not result in a significant reduction in the
margin of safety. As provided in the
discussion of change, the change has been
evaluated to ensure that the deleted
Surveillance Requirements are not necessary
for verification that the equipment used to
meet the LCO can perform its required
functions. Thus, appropriate equipment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
continues to be tested in a manner and at a
frequency necessary to give confidence that
the equipment can perform its assumed
safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 6—
Relaxation of Surveillance Requirement
Acceptance Criteria
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes the
acceptance criteria of Surveillance
Requirements. Surveillances are not initiators
to any accident previously evaluated.
Consequently, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly
increased. The equipment being tested is still
required to be OPERABLE and capable of
performing the accident mitigation functions
assumed in the accident analyses. As a result,
the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed acceptance criteria for
Surveillance Requirements do not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
As provided in the discussion of change, the
relaxed Surveillance Requirement acceptance
criteria have been evaluated to ensure that
they are sufficient to verify that the
equipment used to meet the LCO can perform
its required functions. Thus, appropriate
equipment continues to be tested in a manner
that gives confidence that the equipment can
perform its assumed safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 7—
Relaxation of Surveillance Frequency
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes Surveillance
Frequencies. The relaxed Surveillance
Frequencies have been established based on
achieving acceptable levels of equipment
reliability. Consequently, equipment that
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49469
could initiate an accident previously
evaluated will continue to operate as
expected, and the probability of the initiation
of any accident previously evaluated will not
be significantly increased. The equipment
being tested is still required to be OPERABLE
and capable of performing any accident
mitigation functions assumed in the accident
analyses. As a result, the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed Surveillance Frequencies do
not result in a significant reduction in the
margin of safety. As provided in the
discussion of change, the relaxation in the
Surveillance Frequency has been evaluated
to ensure that it provides an acceptable level
of equipment reliability. Thus, appropriate
equipment continues to be tested at a
Frequency that gives confidence that the
equipment can perform its assumed safety
function when required.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes—Category 8—
Deletion of Reporting Requirements
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change deletes reporting
requirements. Sending reports to the NRC is
not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of
any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. Sending reports to
the NRC has no effect on the ability of
equipment to mitigate an accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49470
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The deletion of reporting requirements
does not result in a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The ITS eliminates the
requirements for many such reports and, in
many cases, relies on the reporting
requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 or other
regulatory requirements. The change to
reporting requirements does not affect the
margin of safety because the regulations
provide adequate reporting requirements, or
the reports do not affect continued plant
operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Specific Proposed NSHC (Change Does Not
Fall Into One of Eight Categories of Less
Restrictive Changes)
ITS Chapter 1.0, ‘‘Use and Applications,’’
Less Restrictive Change L01 (LAR,
Attachment 1, Volume 1; page 112 of 114):
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates certain
Completion Times from the Technical
Specifications. Completion Times are not an
initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not affected.
The consequences of an accident during the
revised Completion Time are no different
than the consequences of the same accident
during the existing Completion Times. As a
result, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this
change. The proposed change does not alter
or prevent the ability of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) from performing
their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
change does not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the
radiological consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed
change does not increase the types or
amounts of radioactive effluent that may be
released offsite, nor significantly increase
individual or cumulative occupational/
public radiation exposures. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The change does not alter
any assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second
Completion Time does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this
change. The proposed change will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside
of the design basis. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
ITS Section 3.0, ‘‘LCO and SR
Applicability,’’ Less Restrictive Change L01
(LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 3, page 57 of
64):
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time
before declaring supported TS systems
inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function.
Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance
into Actions is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on
the delay time allowed before declaring a TS
supported system inoperable and taking its
Conditions and Required Actions are no
different than the consequences of an
accident under the same plant conditions
while relying on the existing TS supported
system Conditions and Required Actions.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
increased by this change. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time
before declaring supported TS systems
inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. Thus, this change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time
before declaring supported TS systems
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function.
The proposed change restores an allowance
in the pre-ISTS conversion TS that was
unintentionally eliminated by the
conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were
considered to provide an adequate margin of
safety for plant operation, as does the postISTS conversion TS. Therefore, this change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
ITS Section 3.0, ‘‘LCO and SR
Applicability,’’ Less Restrictive Change L02
(LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 3, page 60 of
64):
1. Does the change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows entry into a
MODE while relying on ACTIONS. Being in
an ACTION is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Consequently, the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on
ACTIONS as allowed by the proposed LCO
3.0.4 are no different than the consequences
of an accident while relying on ACTIONS for
other reasons, such as equipment
inoperability. Therefore, the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased by this change.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does this change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows entry into a
MODE or other specified conditions in the
Applicability while relying on ACTIONS.
The Technical Specifications allow operation
of the plant without a full complement of
equipment. The risk associated with this
allowance is managed by the imposition of
ACTIONS and Completion Times. The net
effect of ACTIONS and Completion Times on
the margin of safety is not considered
significant. The proposed change does not
change the ACTIONS or Completion Times of
the Technical Specifications. The proposed
change allows the ACTIONS and Completion
Times to be used in new circumstances.
However, this use is predicated on an
assessment which focuses on managing plant
risk. In addition, most current allowances to
utilize the ACTIONS and Completion Times
which do not require risk assessment are
eliminated. As a result, the net change to the
margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore,
this change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s generic and specific NSHC
analyses of each classification of change
and, based on this review, it appears
that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied for each proposed
classification of change. Therefore, the
NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 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.
III. Opportunity to Request a Hearing;
Petition for Leave to Intervene
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
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC’s Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 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
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 petitioner to relief. A
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49471
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.
IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling 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 ten 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
hearing in this proceeding if the
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49472
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 159 / Thursday, August 16, 2012 / Notices
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 the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Aug 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 NRC’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 public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call to 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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
August 16, 2012. 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
action, see the application for
amendment dated July 29, 2011.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K.
Porter, Esquire, Southern California
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day
of August 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–20114 Filed 8–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION
Sunshine Act Meetings
3:00 p.m., Thursday,
September 6, 2012.
PLACE: Offices of the Corporation,
Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New
York Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
STATUS: Hearing OPEN to the Public at
3:00 p.m.
PURPOSE: Public Hearing in conjunction
with each meeting of OPIC’s Board of
Directors, to afford an opportunity for
any person to present views regarding
the activities of the Corporation.
TIME AND DATE:
Procedures
Individuals wishing to address the
hearing orally must provide advance
notice to OPIC’s Corporate Secretary no
later than 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August
30, 2012. The notice must include the
individual’s name, title, organization,
address, and telephone number, and a
concise summary of the subject matter
to be presented.
Oral presentations may not exceed ten
(10) minutes. The time for individual
presentations may be reduced
proportionately, if necessary, to afford
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49463-49472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20114]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362; NRC-2012-0192]
Southern California Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 2 and 3; Application and Amendment to Facility Operating
License Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a
hearing and petition for leave to intervene.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 17, 2012. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available,
by searching on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0192. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0192. 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.
Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1132; email:
Joseph.Sebrosky@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0192 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses
and are publicly available, by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0192.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is
referenced. The application for amendment, dated July 29, 2011 is
available electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML112510214.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0192 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your
[[Page 49464]]
comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enters the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove identifying
or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such
information before making the comment submissions available to the
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-10 and NPF-15 issued to Southern California Edison Company (SCE,
the licensee) for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego County,
California.
The licensee submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for SONGS,
Units 2 and 3, dated July 29, 2011, requesting approval to convert the
Current Technical Specifications (CTS) to be consistent with the most
recently approved version of the Standard Technical Specifications
(STS) for Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432. In 1996, SONGS was
the first plant to adopt the STS for Combustion Engineering plants
(NUREG-1432, Revision 0). Over time, a number of changes and revisions
have been made to those STS, and this LAR seeks to update the SONGS CTS
to the Improved STS (ITS) reflected in NUREG-1432, Revision 3, with the
additional adoption of some recent Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) travelers. The LAR also includes beyond scope changes that are
beyond the scope of the ITS as described in NUREG-1432, Revision 3, and
beyond the scope of the SONGS CTS.
Attachment 1 of the LAR contains 15 volumes; Volumes 1-14 provide a
detailed description of the proposed changes to the following ITS
Chapters and Sections:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume 1............................ ITS Chapter 1.0, Use and
Application
Volume 2............................ ITS Chapter 2.0, Safety Limits
(SLs)
Volume 3............................ ITS Section 3.0, Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO)
Applicability and Surveillance
Requirement (SR) Applicability
Volume 4............................ ITS Section 3.1, Reactivity
Control Systems
Volume 5............................ ITS Section 3.2, Power
Distribution Limits
Volume 6............................ ITS Section 3.3, Instrumentation
Volume 7............................ ITS Section 3.4, Reactor Coolant
System (RCS)
Volume 8............................ ITS Section 3.5, Emergency Core
Cooling Systems (ECCS)
Volume 9............................ ITS Section 3.6, Containment
Systems
Volume 10........................... ITS Section 3.7, Plant Systems
Volume 11........................... ITS Section 3.8, Electrical Power
Systems
Volume 12........................... ITS Section 3.9, Refueling
Operations
Volume 13........................... ITS Chapter 4.0, Design Features
Volume 14........................... ITS Chapter 5.0, Administrative
Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enclosure 2 of the LAR provides a description of the three beyond
scope changes, and Enclosure 3 includes a list of the TSTFs that would
be adopted in whole or in part in the proposed amendment.
This notice is based on the LAR dated July 29, 2011, and the
information provided to the NRC through the San Onofre ITS Conversion
Web page hosted by Excel Services Corporation at https://www.excelservices.com. To expedite the review of the application, the
NRC staff issued or will issue its requests for additional information
(RAIs) and the licensee addressed or will address the RAIs through the
ITS Conversion Web page. Entry into the database is protected so that
only the licensee and NRC reviewers can enter information into the
database to add RAIs (NRC) or provide responses to the RAIs (the
licensee); however, the public can enter the database to read the
questions asked and the responses provided. To be in compliance with
the regulations for written communications for LARs and to have the
database on the SONGS dockets before the amendments would be issued,
the licensee will provide a copy of the database in a submittal to the
NRC after there are no future RAIs and before the amendments can be
issued. The RAIs and responses to RAIs are organized by ITS Section.
The licensee has classified each proposed change to the SONGS CTS
into one of the following five categories (with its letter designator
within brackets):
Administrative changes (A)--Changes to the CTS that do not
result in new requirements or change operational restrictions or
flexibility. These changes are supported in aggregate by a single
generic no significant hazards consideration (NSHC).
More restrictive changes (M)--Changes to the CTS that
result in added restrictions or reduced flexibility. These changes are
supported in aggregate by a single generic NSHC.
Relocated specifications (R)--Changes to the CTS that
relocate specifications that do not meet the selection criteria of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.36(c)(2)(ii).
These changes are supported in aggregate by a single generic NSHC.
Removed detail changes (LA)--Changes to the CTS that
eliminate detail and relocate the detail to a licensee-controlled
document. Typically, this involves details of system design and
function, or procedural detail on methods of conducting a Surveillance
Requirement (SR). These changes are supported in aggregate by a single
generic NSHC.
Less restrictive changes (L)--Changes to the CTS that
result in reduced restrictions or added flexibility. These changes are
supported either in aggregate by a generic NSHC that addresses a
particular category of less restrictive change, or by a specific NSHC
if the change does not fall into one of the eight categories of less
restrictive changes. The eight categories of less restrictive changes
are designated as:
--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO Requirements
--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability
--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion Time
--Category 4--Relaxation of Required Action
--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance Requirement
--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance Requirement Acceptance
Criteria
--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance Frequency
--Category 8--Deletion of Reporting Requirements
If the less restrictive change is covered by a generic NSHC, the
category of the change is identified in italics at the beginning of the
discussion of changes (DOCs) in the LAR.
The three less restrictive changes covered by a specific NSHC are
[[Page 49465]]
described in the LAR in ITS 1.0, ``Use and Applications,'' Less
Restrictive Change L01 (Attachment 1, Volume 1, page 112), and ITS 3.0,
``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive Changes L01 and L02
(Attachment 1, Volume 3, pages 2 and 4, respectively).
Administrative Changes. Some of the proposed changes involve
reformatting, renumbering, and rewording of CTS with no change in
intent. These changes, since they do not involve technical changes to
the CTS, are administrative. This type of change is connected with the
movement of requirements within the current requirements, or with the
modification of wording that does not affect the technical content of
the CTS. These changes also include non-technical modifications of
requirements to conform to TSTF-GG-05-01, ``Writer's Guide for Plant-
Specific Improved Standard Technical Specifications,'' or provide
consistency with the ITS in NUREG-1432. Administrative changes are not
intended to add, delete, or relocate any technical requirements of the
CTS.
More Restrictive Changes. Some of the proposed changes involve
adding more restrictive requirements to the CTS by either making
current requirements more stringent or by adding new requirements that
currently do not exist. These changes include additional requirements
that decrease allowed outage times, increase the Frequency of
Surveillances, impose additional Surveillances, increase the scope of
Specifications to include additional plant equipment, increase the
Applicability of Specifications, or provide additional actions. These
changes are generally made to conform to NUREG-1432 and have been
evaluated to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Relocated Specifications. Some of the proposed changes involve
relocating CTS LCOs to licensee-controlled documents. SCE has evaluated
the CTS using the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. Specifications
identified by this evaluation that did not meet the retention
requirements specified in the regulation are not included in the ITS.
These specifications have been relocated from the CTS to either the
Licensee Controlled Specification (LCS), which is currently
incorporated by reference into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) or the UFSAR.
Removed Detail Changes. Some of the proposed changes involve moving
details out of the CTS and into the TS Bases, the UFSAR, the
Containment Leakage Rate Testing (CLRT) Program, the LCS, or other
documents under regulatory control, such as the Offsite Dose
Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Quality Assurance Program (QAP), the
Inservice Testing (IST) Program, the Inservice Inspection (ISI)
Program, and the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). The
removal of this information is considered to be less restrictive
because it is no longer controlled by the TS change process. Typically,
the information moved is descriptive in nature and its removal conforms
to NUREG-1432 for format and content.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO
Requirements. Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the
CTS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) by the elimination of
specific items from the LCO or Tables referenced in the LCO, or the
addition of exceptions to the LCO. These changes reflect the ITS
approach to provide LCO requirements that specify the protective
conditions that are required to meet safety analysis assumptions for
required features. These conditions replace the lists of specific
devices used in the CTS to describe the requirements needed to meet the
safety analysis assumptions. The ITS also includes LCO Notes which
allow exceptions to the LCO for the performance of testing or other
operational needs. The ITS provides the protection required by the
safety analysis, and provides flexibility for meeting the conditions
without adversely affecting operations since equivalent features are
required to be OPERABLE. The ITS is also consistent with the plant
current licensing basis, as may be modified in the discussion of
individual changes. These changes are generally made to conform with
NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental to plant
safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability.
Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the applicability of
CTS LCOs by reducing the conditions under which the LCO requirements
must be met. CTS requirements are being eliminated during conditions
for which the safety function of the specified safety system is met
because the feature is performing its intended safety function.
Deleting applicability requirements that are indeterminate or which are
inconsistent with application of accident analyses assumptions is
acceptable because when LCOs cannot be met, the ITS may be satisfied by
exiting the applicability which takes the plant out of the conditions
that require the safety system to be OPERABLE. This change provides the
protection required by the safety analyses, and provides flexibility
for meeting limits by restricting the application of the limits to the
conditions assumed in the safety analyses. The ITS is also consistent
with the plant current licensing basis, as may be modified in the
discussion of individual changes. The change is generally made to
conform with NUREG-1432, and has been evaluated to not be detrimental
to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion
Time. Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the Completion
Times for Required Actions in the CTS. Upon discovery of a failure to
meet an LCO, the ITS specifies times for completing Required Actions of
the associated Conditions. Required Actions of the associated
Conditions are used to establish remedial measures that must be taken
within specified Completion Times. These times define limits during
which operation in a degraded condition is permitted. Adopting
Completion Times from the ITS is acceptable because the Completion
Times take into account the OPERABILITY status of the redundant systems
of required features, the capacity and capability of remaining
features, a reasonable time for repairs or replacement of required
features, and the low probability of a Design Basis Accident (DBA)
occurring during the repair period. In addition, the ITS provides
consistent Completion Times for similar conditions. These changes are
generally made to conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to
not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 4--Relaxation of Required
Action. Some of the proposed changes involve relaxation of the Required
Actions in the CTS. Upon discovery of a failure to meet an LCO, the ITS
specifies Required Actions to complete for the associated Conditions.
Required Actions of the associated Conditions are used to establish
remedial measures that must be taken in response to the degraded
conditions. These actions minimize the risk associated with continued
operation while providing time to repair inoperable features. Some of
the Required Actions are modified to place the plant in a MODE in which
the LCO does not apply. Adopting Required Actions from NUREG-1432 is
acceptable because the Required Actions take into account the
OPERABILITY status of redundant systems of required features, the
capacity and capability of the remaining features, and the compensatory
attributes of the Required Actions as compared to the LCO requirements.
These changes are generally made to
[[Page 49466]]
conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental
to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance
Requirement. Some of the proposed changes involve deletion of SRs in
the CTS. The CTS require safety systems to be tested and verified
OPERABLE prior to entering applicable operating conditions. The ITS
eliminates unnecessary CTS SRs that do not contribute to verification
that the equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its required
functions. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be tested in a
manner and at a frequency necessary to give confidence that the
equipment can perform its assumed safety functions. These changes are
generally made to conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to
not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance
Requirement Acceptance Criteria. Some of the proposed changes involve
the relaxation of SRs acceptance criteria in the CTS. The CTS require
safety systems to be tested and verified OPERABLE prior to entering
applicable operating conditions. The ITS eliminates or relaxes the SR
acceptance criteria that do not contribute to verification that the
equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its required functions. For
example, the ITS allows some SRs to verify OPERABILITY under actual or
test conditions. Adopting the ITS allowance for ``actual'' conditions
is acceptable because required features cannot distinguish between an
``actual'' signal or a ``test'' signal. Also included are changes to
CTS requirements that are replaced in the ITS with separate and
distinct testing requirements that when combined, include OPERABILITY
verification of all components required in the LCO for the features
specified in the CTS. Adopting this format preference in the ITS is
acceptable because SRs that remain include testing of all previous
features required to be verified OPERABLE. Changes that provide
exceptions to SRs to provide for variations that do not affect the
results of the test are also included in this category. These changes
are generally made to conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated
to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance
Frequency. Some of the proposed changes involve the relaxation of
Surveillance Frequencies in the CTS. CTS and ITS Surveillance
Frequencies specify time interval requirements for performing
Surveillance tests. Increasing the time interval between Surveillance
tests in the ITS results in decreased equipment unavailability due to
testing which also increases equipment availability. In general, the
ITS contain Surveillance Frequencies that are consistent with industry
practice or industry standards for achieving acceptable levels of
equipment reliability. Adopting testing practices specified in the ITS
is acceptable based on similar design, like-component testing for the
system application and the availability of other ITS requirements which
provide regular checks to ensure limits are met. Relaxation of
Surveillance Frequency can also include the addition of Surveillance
Notes which allow testing to be delayed until appropriate unit
conditions for the test are established, or exempt testing in certain
MODES or specified conditions in which the testing cannot be performed.
Reduced testing can result in a safety enhancement because the
unavailability due to testing is reduced, and reliability of the
affected structure, system or component should remain constant or
increase. Reduced testing is acceptable where operating experience,
industry practice, or the industry standards such as manufacturers'
recommendations have shown that these components usually pass the
Surveillance when performed at the specified interval, thus the
Surveillance Frequency is acceptable from a reliability standpoint.
Surveillance Frequency changes to incorporate alternate train testing
have been shown to be acceptable where other qualitative or
quantitative test requirements are required that are established
predictors of system performance. Surveillance Frequency extensions can
be based on NRC-approved topical reports. The NRC staff has accepted
topical report analyses that bound the plant-specific design and
component reliability assumptions. These changes are generally made to
conform with NUREG-1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental
to plant safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 8--Deletion of Reporting
Requirements. Some of the proposed changes involve the deletion of
requirements in the CTS to send reports to the NRC. The CTS includes
requirements to submit reports to the NRC under certain circumstances.
However, the ITS eliminates these requirements for many such reports
and, in many cases, relies on the reporting requirements of 10 CFR
50.73 or other regulatory requirements. The ITS changes to reporting
requirements are acceptable because the regulations provide adequate
reporting requirements, or the reports do not affect continued plant
operation. Therefore, this change has no effect on the safe operation
of the plant. These changes are generally made to conform with NUREG-
1432, and have been evaluated to not be detrimental to plant safety.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves 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; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC,
by classification of change, which is presented below. The generic
proposed NSHC, by classification of change, are listed first, followed
by the specific proposed NSHC related to ITS Chapter 1.0 Less
Restrictive Change L01, ITS Section 3.0 Less Restrictive Change L01,
and ITS Section 3.0 Less Restrictive change L02 (changes that do not
fall into one of the eight categories of less restrictive changes).
Generic Proposed NSHC
Administrative Changes
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves reformatting, renumbering, and
rewording the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording
process involves no technical changes to the CTS. As such, this
change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or
[[Page 49467]]
different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change will not
impose any new or eliminate any old requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because
it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. This change is
administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
More Restrictive Changes
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides more stringent Technical
Specification requirements for the facility. These more stringent
requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase
the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter
assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient
event. The more restrictive requirements continue to ensure process
variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained
consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change does impose different Technical Specification requirements.
However, these changes are consistent with the assumptions in the
safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The imposition of more restrictive requirements either has no
effect on or increases the margin of plant safety. As provided in
the discussion of change, each change in this category is, by
definition, providing additional restrictions to enhance plant
safety. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses
and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Relocated Specifications
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates requirements and Surveillances for
structures, systems, components, or variables that do not meet the
criteria of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion in Technical
Specifications as identified in the Application of Selection
Criteria to the SONGS Technical Specifications. The affected
structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed to be
initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate
accident or transient events. The requirements and Surveillances for
these affected structures, systems, components, or variables will be
relocated from the CTS to the LCS, which is currently incorporated
by reference into the UFSAR, thus it will be maintained pursuant to
10 CFR 50.59. The UFSAR is subject to the change control provisions
of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.71(e). In addition, the affected
structures, systems, components, or variables are addressed in
existing surveillance procedures which are also controlled by 10 CFR
50.59, and are subject to the change control provisions imposed by
plant administrative procedures, which endorse applicable
regulations and standards.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and
adequate control of existing requirements will be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because
it has no significant effect on any safety analyses assumptions, as
indicated by the fact that the requirements do not meet the 10 CFR
50.36 criteria for retention. In addition, the relocated
requirements are moved without change, and any future changes to
these requirements will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59.
NRC prior review and approval of changes to these relocated
requirements, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, will no longer be
required. This review and approval does not provide a specific
margin of safety that can be evaluated. However, the proposed change
is consistent with NUREG-1432, issued by the NRC, which allows
revising the CTS to relocate these requirements and Surveillances to
a licensee controlled document.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Removed Detail Changes
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates certain details from the CTS to
other documents under regulatory control. The Technical
Specification Bases and the LCS, which is currently incorporated by
reference into the UFSAR, will be maintained in accordance with 10
CFR 50.59. In addition to 10 CFR 50.59 provisions, the Technical
Specification Bases are subject to the change control provisions in
the Administrative Controls Chapter of the ITS. The UFSAR is subject
to the change control provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR
50.71(e). Other documents are subject to controls imposed by the ITS
or other regulations. Since any changes to these documents will be
evaluated, no significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The
proposed change will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and
adequate control of the information will be maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because
it has no effect on any assumption of the safety analyses. In
addition, the details to be moved from the CTS to other documents
are not being changed. Since any future changes to these details
will be evaluated under the applicable regulatory change control
mechanism, no significant reduction in a margin of safety will be
allowed. A significant reduction in the margin of safety is not
associated with the elimination of the 10 CFR 50.90 requirement for
NRC review and approval of future changes to the relocated details.
Not including these details in the Technical Specifications is
consistent with NUREG-1432, issued by the NRC, which allows revising
the Technical Specifications to relocate these requirements and
Surveillances to a licensee controlled document controlled by 10 CFR
50.59, 10 CFR 50.71(e), or other Technical
[[Page 49468]]
Specification controlled or regulation controlled documents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO Requirements
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides less restrictive LCO requirements
for operation of the facility. These less restrictive LCO
requirements do not result in operation that will significantly
increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event and do not
alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient
event in that the requirements continue to ensure process variables,
structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with
the current safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change does impose different requirements. However, the
change is consistent with the assumptions in the current safety
analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The imposition of less restrictive LCO requirements does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided
in the discussion of change, this change has been evaluated to
ensure that the current safety analyses and licensing basis
requirements are maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes the conditions under which the LCO
requirements for operation of the facility must be met. These less
restrictive applicability requirements for the LCOs do not result in
operation that will significantly increase the probability of
initiating an analyzed event and do not alter assumptions relative
to mitigation of an accident or transient event in that the
requirements continue to ensure that process variables, structures,
systems, and components are maintained in the MODES and other
specified conditions assumed in the safety analyses and licensing
basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change does impose different requirements. However, the
requirements are consistent with the assumptions in the safety
analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed applicability of LCO requirements does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the
discussion of change, this change has been evaluated to ensure that
the LCO requirements are applied in the MODES and specified
conditions assumed in the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion Time
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes the Completion Time for a Required
Action. Required Actions and their associated Completion Times are
not initiating conditions for any accident previously evaluated, and
the accident analyses do not assume that required equipment is out
of service prior to the analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed
Completion Time does not significantly increase the probability of
any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an analyzed
accident during the relaxed Completion Time are the same as the
consequences during the existing Completion Time. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the method governing normal plant operation. The
Required Actions and associated Completion Times in the ITS have
been evaluated to ensure that no new accident initiators are
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed Completion Time for a Required Action does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided
in the discussion of change, the change has been evaluated to ensure
that the allowed Completion Time is consistent with safe operation
under the specified Condition, considering the OPERABILITY status of
the redundant systems of required features, the capacity and
capability of remaining features, a reasonable time for repairs or
replacement of required features, and the low probability of a DBA
occurring during the repair period.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 4--Relaxation of Required Action
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes Required Actions. Required Actions
and their associated Completion Times are not initiating conditions
for any accident previously evaluated, and the accident analyses do
not assume that required equipment is out of service prior to the
analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed Required Actions do not
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously
evaluated. The Required Actions in the ITS have been developed to
provide appropriate remedial actions to be taken in response to the
degraded condition considering the OPERABILITY status of the
redundant systems of required features, and the capacity and
capability of remaining features while minimizing the risk
associated with continued operation. As a result, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
Required Actions and associated Completion Times in the ITS have
been evaluated to ensure that no new accident initiators are
introduced.
[[Page 49469]]
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed Required Actions do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the discussion of
change, this change has been evaluated to minimize the risk of
continued operation under the specified Condition, considering the
OPERABILITY status of the redundant systems of required features,
the capacity and capability of remaining features, a reasonable time
for repairs or replacement of required features, and the low
probability of a Design Basis Accident (DBA) occurring during the
repair period.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance
Requirement
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change deletes Surveillance Requirements.
Surveillances are not initiators to any accident previously
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The equipment being tested
is still required to be OPERABLE and capable of performing the
accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident analyses. As a
result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
remaining Surveillance Requirements are consistent with industry
practice, and are considered sufficient to prevent the removal of
the subject Surveillances from creating a new or different type of
accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The deleted Surveillance Requirements do not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the
discussion of change, the change has been evaluated to ensure that
the deleted Surveillance Requirements are not necessary for
verification that the equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its
required functions. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be
tested in a manner and at a frequency necessary to give confidence
that the equipment can perform its assumed safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance
Requirement Acceptance Criteria
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes the acceptance criteria of
Surveillance Requirements. Surveillances are not initiators to any
accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
equipment being tested is still required to be OPERABLE and capable
of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the
accident analyses. As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed acceptance criteria for Surveillance Requirements do
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As
provided in the discussion of change, the relaxed Surveillance
Requirement acceptance criteria have been evaluated to ensure that
they are sufficient to verify that the equipment used to meet the
LCO can perform its required functions. Thus, appropriate equipment
continues to be tested in a manner that gives confidence that the
equipment can perform its assumed safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance
Frequency
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relaxes Surveillance Frequencies. The
relaxed Surveillance Frequencies have been established based on
achieving acceptable levels of equipment reliability. Consequently,
equipment that could initiate an accident previously evaluated will
continue to operate as expected, and the probability of the
initiation of any accident previously evaluated will not be
significantly increased. The equipment being tested is still
required to be OPERABLE and capable of performing any accident
mitigation functions assumed in the accident analyses. As a result,
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The relaxed Surveillance Frequencies do not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the
discussion of change, the relaxation in the Surveillance Frequency
has been evaluated to ensure that it provides an acceptable level of
equipment reliability. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be
tested at a Frequency that gives confidence that the equipment can
perform its assumed safety function when required.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Less Restrictive Changes--Category 8--Deletion of Reporting
Requirements
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change deletes reporting requirements. Sending
reports to the NRC is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. Sending reports to the NRC
has no effect on the ability of equipment to mitigate an accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated is not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
[[Page 49470]]
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The deletion of reporting requirements does not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The ITS eliminates
the requirements for many such reports and, in many cases, relies on
the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 or other regulatory
requirements. The change to reporting requirements does not affect
the margin of safety because the regulations provide adequate
reporting requirements, or the reports do not affect continued plant
operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Specific Proposed NSHC (Change Does Not Fall Into One of Eight
Categories of Less Restrictive Changes)
ITS Chapter 1.0, ``Use and Applications,'' Less Restrictive
Change L01 (LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 1; page 112 of 114):
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates certain Completion Times from the
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to
any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences
of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source
term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions
used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase
the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant
consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change
does not alter any assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside of the design basis. Therefore, the proposed
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive
Change L01 (LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 3, page 57 of 64):
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into Actions
or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed
before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its
Conditions and Required Actions are no different than the
consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while
relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and Required
Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. Therefore,
this change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation. Thus, this change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change
restores an allowance in the pre-ISTS conversion TS that was
unintentionally eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were
considered to provide an adequate margin of safety for plant
operation, as does the post-ISTS conversion TS. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive
Change L02 (LAR, Attachment 1, Volume 3, page 60 of 64):
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows entry into a MODE while relying on
ACTIONS. Being in an ACTION is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on ACTIONS as allowed by
the proposed LCO 3.0.4 are no different than the consequences of an
accident while relying on ACTIONS for other reasons, such as
equipment inoperability. Therefore, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows entry into a MODE or other specified
conditions in the Applicability while relying on ACTIONS. The
Technical Specifications allow operation of the plant without a full
complement of equipment. The risk associated with this allowance is
managed by the imposition of ACTIONS and Completion Times. The net
effect of ACTIONS and Completion Times on the margin of safety is
not considered significant. The proposed change does not change the
ACTIONS or Completion Times of the Technical Specifications. The
proposed change allows the ACTIONS and Completion Times to be used
in new circumstances. However, this use is predicated on an
assessment which focuses on managing plant risk. In addition, most
current allowances to utilize the ACTIONS and Completion Times which
do not require risk assessment are eliminated. As a result, the net
change to the margin of safety is insignificant. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
[[Page 49471]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's generic and specific NSHC
analyses of each classification of change and, based on this review, it
appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied for
each proposed classification of change. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 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.
III. Opportunity to Request a Hearing; Petition for Leave to Intervene
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 O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at 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 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
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 petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
IV. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten 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
[[Page 49472]]
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 the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the NRC'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 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 NRC'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 public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call to 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 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 August 16, 2012. 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 action, see the
application for amendment dated July 29, 2011.
Attorney for licensee: Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of August 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph M. Sebrosky,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-20114 Filed 8-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P