ML14149A310

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
FRN: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations: Publication Date: June 6, 2014
ML14149A310
Person / Time
Site: Hatch, Salem, Susquehanna, Summer, Vogtle, Farley  PSEG icon.png
Issue date: 05/30/2014
From: Marilyn Evans
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To:
Burkhardt J
References
79 FR 32766; 6/6/14, NRC-2014-0132
Download: ML14149A310 (23)
v • d • e


Text

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0132]

Biweekly Notice Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.

The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from May 15 to May 28, 2014. The last biweekly notice was published on May 27, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed July 7, 2014. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 5, 2014.

2 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

  • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0132. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; e-mail: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
  • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see Accessing Information and Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone:

301-415-1384, e-mail: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments.

A. Accessing Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0132 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:

3

  • NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):

You may access publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and then select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

  • NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0132 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

4 If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commissions regulations in

§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment

5 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.

A. Opportunity to Request a Hearing and 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 or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commissions Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRCs regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the

6 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 requestors/petitioners right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3) the nature and extent of the requestors/petitioners 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 requestors/petitioners interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

7 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.

B. 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 NRCs 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 e-mail at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification

8 (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRCs Guidance for Electronic Submission, which is available on the agencys public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRCs 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 NRCs 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 NRCs Web site.

Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene.

Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance

9 available on the NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRCs 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 e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the NRCs 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 NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the Contact Us link located on the NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format.

Such filings must be submitted by: (1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited

10 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 NRCs electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

11 For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRCs PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the Accessing Information and Submitting Comments section of this document.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 , Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: March 24, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14083A439.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise Salem Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4, and 4.2.2.2.f associated with Power Distribution Limits Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.2.1, Axial Flux Difference (AFD), and TS 3/4.2.2, Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor - FQ(Z).

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The change to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.2.1.3 will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The change to SR 4.2.1.3 aligns the Technical Specifications (TS) with the current TS Bases and is consistent with NUREG-1431; there is no change to how target flux difference is measured. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, the probability or consequences of previously analyzed events is not increased.

12 Therefore, there is no impact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The change to SR 4.2.1.4 and TS Bases by utilizing the predicted Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at end of cycle life in determining the target AFD via interpolation will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR.

The change to SR 4.2.1.4 aligns the TS with the Salem UFSAR design basis as described in Section 4. 3.2.2.6, which specifies use of cycle specific target values, and is consistent with NUREG-1431. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, the probability or consequences of previously analyzed events is not increased.

Therefore, there is no impact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The relocation of the SR 4.2.2.2.f axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases has no impact to the accidents analyzed in the Salem UFSAR and is not an accident initiator. The relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases is consistent with NUREG-1431. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, the probability or consequences of previously analyzed events is not increased.

Therefore, there is no impact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The change to SR 4.2.1.3 will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR. The change to SR 4.2.1.3 aligns the TS with the current TS Bases and is consistent with NUREG-1431; there is no change to how target flux difference is measured. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident resulting from the change.

Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.

The change to SR 4.2.1.4 and TS Bases by utilizing the predicted Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at end of cycle life in determining the target AFD via interpolation will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR.

The change to SR 4.2.1.4 aligns the TS with the Salem UFSAR design

13 basis as described in Section 4.3.2.2.6, which specifies use of cycle specific target values, and is consistent with NUREG-1431. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident resulting from the change.

Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.

The relocation of the SR 4.2.2.2.f axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases has no impact to the accidents analyzed in the Salem UFSAR and is not an accident initiator. The relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases is consistent with NUREG-1431. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident resulting from the change.

Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The change to SR 4.2.1.3 will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR. The change to SR 4.2.1.3 aligns the TS with the current TS Bases and is consistent with NUREG-1431; there is no change to how target flux difference is measured.

Therefore, there is no reduction in margin of safety.

The change to SR 4.2.1.4 and TS Bases by utilizing the predicted Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at end of cycle life in determining the target AFD via interpolation will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR.

The change to SR 4.2.1.4 aligns the TS with the Salem UFSAR design basis as described in Section 4.3.2.2.6, which specifies use of cycle specific target values, and is consistent with NUREG-1431.

Therefore, there is no reduction in margin of safety.

The relocation of the SR 4.2.2.2.f axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases has no impact to the accidents analyzed in the Salem UFSAR and is not an accident initiator. The relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases is consistent with NUREG-1431. In accordance with NRC approved methodologies (TS 6.9.1.9), reload specific safety evaluations

14 are performed to ensure that the limits of safety analyses are met (i.e.,

margin of safety).

Therefore, the relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases does not impact margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC - N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.

NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: April 7, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14122A144.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests approval of a revision to the emergency action levels from a scheme based on NEI 99-01, Revision 5, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels to a scheme based on NEI 99-01, Revision 6, Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

15 Response: No.

The proposed changes to the VCSNS emergency action levels do not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed changes.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. The proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the VCSNS emergency action levels are not initiators of any accidents.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public.

The proposed changes do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the operating license. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed

16 changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. The emergency plan will continue to activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of plant safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, SC 29218.

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: April 11, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14101A459.

Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment request would depart from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 and Tier 2 material to describe modifications to increase the efficiency of the return of condensate utilized by the passive core cooling system to the in-containment refueling water storage tank to support the capability for long-term cooling.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

17

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed containment condensate flow path changes provide sufficient condensate return flow to maintain In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank (IRWST) level above the top of the Passive Residual Heat Removal Heat Exchanger (PRHR HX) tubes, thus preventing PRHR HX performance degradation from that considered in the safety analyses.

The added components are seismically qualified and constructed of only those materials appropriately suited for exposure to the reactor coolant environment as described in [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]

UFSAR Section 6.1. No aluminum is permitted to be used in the construction of these components so that they do not contribute to hydrogen production in containment. The proposed changes do not alter design features available during anticipated operational occurrences or accidents. The proposed changes do not involve any accident initiating component/system failure or event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected. The affected equipment does not adversely affect or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The long-term safe shutdown analysis results show that the PRHR HX continues to meets its acceptance criterion, i.e., to cool the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) to below 420ºF in 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. The affected equipment does not adversely interface with any component whose failure could initiate an accident, or any component that contains radioactive material. The modified components do not incorporate any active features relied upon to support normal operation. The downspout and gutter return components are seismically qualified to remain in place and functional during seismic and dynamic events. The containment condensate flow path changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material release.

18 Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not reduce the redundancy, diversity or performance of any safety-related function. The proposed containment condensate flow path changes provide sufficient condensate return flow to maintain adequate IRWST water level for those events using the PRHR HX cooling function. The long-term Shutdown Temperature Evaluation results show the PRHR HX continues to meets [sic] its acceptance criterion. The UFSAR Chapters 6 and 15 analyses results are not affected, thus margins to their regulatory acceptance criteria are unchanged. The added components are classified as safety-related, seismically qualified, and comply with their applicable design codes. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

19 II. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses.

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commissions rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the Accessing Information and Submitting Comments section of this document.

20 PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: June 6, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated January 23, 2014.

Brief description of amendments: These amendments change Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.12 in Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.1, ECCS [emergency core cooling system] -

Operating. Specifically, the amendments eliminate the TS requirement for the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) valves to open during manual actuation of the ADS circuitry, change the surveillance frequency from 24 months on a STAGGERED TEST BASIS for each valve solenoid, to 24 months, and remove a note above the SR that stated the SR was not required to be performed until 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after reactor steam pressure and flow are adequate to perform the test.

Date of issuance: May 14, 2014.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.

Amendment Nos.: 260 and 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14111A052; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments revised the license and the TS.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74183). The supplemental letter dated January 23, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

21 The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2014.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia Date of amendment request: July 5, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated November 13 and November 30, 2012, and February 22, 2013.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation for the plant service water (PSW) and ultimate heat sink. Specifically, the surveillance requirement for the minimum water level in each PSW pump well of the intake structure would be revised from a value of 60.7 feet mean sea level (MSL) to a value of 60.5 MSL.

Date of issuance: May 13, 2014.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1 - 267 and Unit 2 - 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14042A465; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.

22 Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53930).

The supplements dated November 13, and November 30, 2012, and February 22, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 13, 2014.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: December 21, 2012, as supplemented by letter dated May 21, 2013.

Brief description of amendment request: The amendments will incorporate a degraded grid voltage modification schedule into the J. M. Farley operating licenses. This modification would eliminate the need for manual actions in the event of a degraded grid voltage condition.

Date of issuance: May 13, 2014.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.

23 Amendment Nos.: 194 and 190. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14069A344; documents related to this these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54289). The supplement dated May 21, 2013, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 13, 2014.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of May, 2014.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

/RA/

Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14149A310&oldid=2048470"