[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53923-53935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21545]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2012-0205]
Biweekly Notice;
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue
and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license 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 August 8, 2012, to August 21, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 21, 2012, (77 FR 50534).
ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related
to this document, which the NRC possesses and are publicly available,
by searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-
0205.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0205. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0205 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 is publicly available, by the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0205.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC
Library 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 NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. Documents may be viewed in
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One
[[Page 53924]]
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0205 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 in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS, and 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.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 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 before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. The NRC regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC
Library on the NRC's 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 Secretary or the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a
hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one 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
[[Page 53925]]
would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://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 agency's 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 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 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
available on the NRC's 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 NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
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. 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. Non-timely filings
will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer
that the petition or request should be granted or the contentions
should be admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
[[Page 53926]]
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland
Date of amendments request: July 2, 2012.
Description of amendments request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.16 by increasing the calculated peak
containment internal pressure (Pa) from 49.4 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) to 49.7 psig for the design basis loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA). In support of the revised Pa, the
amendment would also revise the initial internal containment pressure
limit in TS 3.6.4 by decreasing the upper bound initial pressure limit
from 1.8 psig to 1.0 psig.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to Pa and the initial containment
pressure limit does not alter the assumed initiators to any analyzed
event. The probability of an accident previously evaluated will not
be increased by this proposed change. The change in Pa
and the initial containment pressure limit will not affect
radiological dose consequence analyses. The radiological dose
consequence analyses assume a certain containment atmosphere leak
rate based on the maximum allowable containment leakage rate, which
is not affected by the change in Pa. The Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix J containment
leak rate testing program will continue to ensure that containment
leakage remains within the leakage assumed in the offsite dose
consequence analyses.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed change to TSs 3.6.4 and 5.5.16 will 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 type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides a higher Pa than
currently described in the TS. This change is a result of an
increase in the mass and energy release input for the LOCA
containment response analysis. The Pa remains below the
containment design pressure of 50 psig because of the change in the
initial containment pressure limit, which is an initial condition of
the peak pressure calculation. This change does not involve any
alteration in the plant configuration, no new or different type of
equipment will be installed, or make changes in the methods
governing normal plant operation.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed change to TSs 3.6.4 and 5.5.16 would 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 Pa remains below the containment design pressure
of 50 psig. Since the radiological consequence analyses are based on
the maximum allowable containment leakage rate, which is not being
revised, the change in the calculated peak containment pressure does
not represent a significant change in the margin of safety.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed change to TSs 3.6.4 and 5.5.16 does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the
licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC
staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steven L. Miller, General Counsel,
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, 100 Constellation Way, Suite
200c, Baltimore, MD 21202.
NRC Branch Chief: George Wilson.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) Technical
Specification requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections
and reporting as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam
Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection;''
however, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. is proposing minor
variations and deviations from TSTF-510.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a
plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency
and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG
tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not
increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The
proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed
those assumptions. The proposed change to reporting requirements and
clarifications of the existing requirements have no affect on the
probability or consequences of SGTR.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 changes to the SG Program will not introduce any
adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents
resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does
not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In
addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system
or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that heat can be
removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also
isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from
the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is
maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design,
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The
proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the
[[Page 53927]]
physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a
reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current
requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: George A. Wilson.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (MPS3) Technical
Specification requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections
and reporting as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam
Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection;''
however, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. is proposing minor
variations and deviations from TSTF-510.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a
plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency
and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG
tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not
increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The
proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed
those assumptions. The proposed change to reporting requirements and
clarifications of the existing requirements have no affect on the
probability or consequences of SGTR.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 changes to the SG Program will not introduce any
adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents
resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does
not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In
addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system
or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that heat can be
removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also
isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from
the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is
maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design,
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The
proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical
condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in
the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: George A. Wilson.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN
50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 (Braidwood), Will County,
Illinois; Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1
and 2 (Byron), Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 6, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Braidwood and Byron Technical Specifications (TS) to add a Note
to Surveillance Requirements (SR) 3.3.1.7, 3.3.1.8, and 3.3.1.12 in TS
3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' and SRs 3.3.2.2
and 3.3.2.6 in TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to exclude the Solid State Protection System
input relays from the Channel Operational Test Surveillance for RTS and
ESFAS Functions with installed bypass capability which the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved by letters dated March 30, 2012,
and April 9, 2012.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Reactor Protection System (RPS) and ESFAS provide plant
protection and are part of the accident mitigating response. The RTS
and ESFAS functions do not themselves act at a precursor or an
initiator for any transient or design basis accident. Therefore, the
proposed change does not significantly increase the probability of
any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The structural and
functional integrity of the RTS and ESFAS, and any other plant
system, is unaffected. The proposed change does not alter or prevent
the ability of any structures, systems, and components from
performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of
an initiating event within the applicable acceptance criteria.
Surveillance testing in the bypass condition will not cause any
design or analysis acceptance criteria to be exceeded
The impact of using bypass testing capability upon nuclear
safety have been previously evaluated by the NRC and determined to
be acceptable in [Westinghouse Atomic Power] WCAP 10271-P-A,
Revision 1, WCAP 14333-P-A, Revision 1, and WCAP 15376-P-A, Revision
1. Thus, testing in bypass does not involve
[[Page 53928]]
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Implementation of the bypass testing capability does not affect
the integrity of the fission product barriers utilized for the
mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a result of an
accident. The plant response as modeled in the safety analyses is
unaffected by this change. Hence, the release used as input to the
dose calculations are unchanged from those previously assumed.
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 result in a change in the manner in
which the RTS and ESFAS provide plant protection. The RTS and ESFAS
will continue to have the same setpoints after the proposed change
in implemented. In addition, no new failure modes are being created
for any plant equipment. The change does not result in the creation
of any changes to the existing accident scenarios nor do they create
any new or different accident scenarios. The types of accidents
defined in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] continue
to represent the credible spectrum of events to be analyzed which
determine safe 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.
No safety analyses are changed or modified as a result of the
proposed TS change to reflect installed bypass testing capability.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety
limits, limiting safety system setpoints, of limiting conditions for
operation are determined. Margins associated with the current
applicable safety analyses acceptance criteria are unaffected. The
current safety analyses remain bounding since their conclusions are
not affected by performing surveillance testing in bypass. The
safety systems credited in the safety analyses will continue to be
available to perform their mitigation functions.
Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity
with regard of the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered
safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited
as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed change will not
result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis. Although there was no attempt to quantify any positive human
factors benefit due to excluding the relays from the [Channel
Operational Text] COT Surveillance for those RTS and ESFAS Functions
that have installed bypass test capability, it is expected that
there would be a new benefit due to a reduced potential for spurious
reactor trips and actuations associated with testing.
Implementation of the proposed change is expected to result in
an overall improvement of safety, as reduced testing will result in
fewer inadvertent reactor trips, less frequent actuation of ESFAF
components, less frequent distraction of operations personnel with
significant affecting RTS and ESFAS reliability.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation, EGC concludes that the proposed
amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration under
the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, (c), and, accordingly, a
finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos.
50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: July 18, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 to change the operability requirements
for the normal heat sink (NHS). The NHS for PBAPS is the Susquehanna
River. Currently, in accordance with TS 3.7.2, the NHS is considered
operable with a maximum water temperature of 90[emsp14][deg]F. However,
TS 3.7.2 also currently contains provisions to allow plant operation to
continue if the NHS water temperature exceeds the 90[emsp14][deg]F
limit. Specifically, the NHS is still considered operable as long as
the NHS temperature: (1) does not exceed 92[emsp14][deg]F and; (2) is
verified at least once per hour to be less than or equal to
90[emsp14][deg]F when averaged over the previous 24-hour period. The
proposed amendment would change the NHS water temperature limit such
that the NHS would be considered operable as long as the maximum water
temperature was less than or equal to 92[emsp14][deg]F.
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 proposed change allows plant operation to continue if the
Normal Heat Sink (NHS) temperature does not exceed 92[emsp14][deg]F.
The water temperature limit imposed for the NHS exists to ensure the
ability of safety systems to mitigate the consequences of an
accident and does not involve the prevention or identification of
any precursors of an accident. The water temperature of the NHS
cannot adversely affect the initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. This change does not affect the normal operation of the
plant to the extent that any accident previously evaluated would be
more likely to occur.
The safety objective of the water temperature limit for the NHS
is to ensure that the heat removal capability of the Emergency
Service Water (ESW) and High Pressure Service Water (HPSW) Systems
is adequate to allow safety related equipment that is relied upon to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or operational transient to
perform its design function. The design basis heat removal
capability of the affected components and systems is maintained at
the NHS temperature limit, thus ensuring that the affected safety
related components continuously perform their safety related
function at the NHS temperature limit. The limits for equipment
degradation ensure that the affected components continue to perform
their design basis function. Consequently, the affected components
maintain their design basis capability as previously assumed in
[the] plant safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of a previously evaluated
accident.
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 change allows plant operation to continue if the
Normal Heat Sink (NHS) temperature does not exceed 92[emsp14][deg]F.
The method of operation of components (heat exchangers, coolers,
etc.), which rely on the NHS for cooling, is not altered by this
activity. The water temperature limit imposed for the NHS exists to
ensure the ability of plant safety equipment to mitigate the
consequences of an accident and does not have the potential to
create an accident initiator. This activity does not involve a
physical change to any plant structure, system or component that is
considered an accident initiator. The design basis heat removal
capability of the affected components is maintained.
This license amendment request does not involve any changes to
the operation, testing, or maintenance of any safety-related, or
[[Page 53929]]
otherwise important to safety systems. All systems important to
safety will continue to be operated and maintained within their
design bases.
Therefore, no new failure modes are introduced and the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 under the NHS temperature
limit (92[emsp14][deg]F) does not reduce the margin of safety as
defined in the basis for any Technical Specification. Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.2.2 defines the
value for satisfying the Limiting Condition for Operation for the
temperature of the NHS. A portion of the Technical Specification
Bases for SR 3.7.2.2 states:
Verification of the Normal Heat Sink temperature ensures that
the heat removal capability of the ESW and HPSW Systems is within
the DBA [design-basis accident] analysis.
The basis for SR 3.7.2.2 has not changed as a result of the
proposed [change]. The heat removal capability of the components
that rely on the ESW and HPSW Systems for cooling is based on the
Technical Specification temperature limit (92[emsp14][deg]F) of the
NHS and the performance capability of the equipment. Periodic
testing and cleaning are required to verify and ensure that the
assumed degree of degradation is not reached. The limits for
equipment degradation ensure that affected components continue to
perform their design basis function.
Therefore, since the design basis capability of the affected
components is maintained at the NHS temperature limit
(92[emsp14][deg]F), this change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for Licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Kennett
Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 25, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.3 to allow the normally
required near-end of life Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC)
measurement to not be performed under certain conditions. If these
specified conditions are met, the MTC measurement would be replaced by
a calculated value.
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, with NRC edits in brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This amendment request would change the near-end of life (EOL)
moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance requirement
(SR) to allow [] the required MTC measurement [to be eliminated]
under certain conditions. This change would not result in physical
alteration of a plant structure, system or component, or
installation of new or different types of equipment. Modification of
the surveillance requirement under certain conditions would not
affect the probability of accidents previously evaluated in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) or cause a change to
any of the dose analyses associated with the UFSAR accidents because
accident mitigation functions would remain unchanged. Existing MTC
TS limits would remain unchanged and would continue to be satisfied.
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.
This amendment request would change the near EOL MTC SR to allow
[] the required MTC measurement [to be eliminated] under certain
conditions. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed
change. No physical plant alterations are made as a result of the
proposed change. The proposed change does not challenge the
performance or integrity of any safety related system. MTC is a
variable that must remain within limits but is not an accident
initiator.
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.
This amendment request would change the near EOL MTC SR to allow
[] the required MTC measurement to be eliminated under certain
conditions. The margin of safety associated with the acceptance
criteria of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR is
unchanged. The proposed change would have no affect on the
availability, operability, or performance of the safety-related
systems and components. A change to a surveillance is proposed based
on an alternate method of confirming that the surveillance
requirement is met. The Technical Specification limiting condition
for operation (LCO) limits for MTC remain unchanged.
The Technical Specifications establish limits for the moderator
temperature coefficient based on assumptions in the UFSAR accident
analyses. Applying the conditional [elimination of] the moderator
temperature coefficient measurement changes the method of meeting
the surveillance requirement; however this change does not modify
the TS values and ensures adherence to the current TS limits. The
basis for derivation of the moderator temperature coefficient limits
from the moderator density coefficient assumed in the accident
analysis would not change.
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the TS is not
reduced and the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and based on
this review, with the edits noted above, 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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 16, 2012, as supplemented by letter
dated August 10, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam
generator tube inspections and reporting as described in Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler 510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam
Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
The proposed changes would revise TS 3/4.4.5, ``Steam Generator (SG)
Tube Integrity,'' TS 6.8.4.j, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program.'' and TS
6.9.1.8, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity
[[Page 53930]]
and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR)
event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part
of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection
frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that
the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is
not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The
proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed
those assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 changes to the Steam Generator Program will not
introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or
postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The
proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their
method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not
impact any other plant system or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary and, as such, are
relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory.
As part of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, the SG
tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat
transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that
residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition,
the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the
primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety
function of a SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its
tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design,
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The
proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical
condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in
the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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.S. Ross, Attorney, Florida Power & Light,
P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 5, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) for the plant service water (PSW) and ultimate heat sink (UHS).
Specifically, the surveillance requirement (SR) for the minimum water
level in each PSW pump well of the intake structure would be revised
from the existing value to a lower value. This change is based on
updated design basis analyses that demonstrate that at the new minimum
level sufficient water inventory remains available from the Altamaha
River for PSW and residual heat removal service water (RHRSW) to handle
Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) cooling requirements for 30 days post-
accident with no additional makeup water source available.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 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 proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 [feet] ft [mean
sea level] MSL to 60.5 ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS
is OPERABLE by ensuring the water level in the PSW pump well of the
intake structure is sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby
service water pumps to supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30
days. The safety function of the UHS is to mitigate the impact of an
accident. The proposed TS change does not result in or require any
physical changes to HNP systems, structures, and components,
including those intended for the prevention of accidents. The
potential impact of the lower PSW pump well minimum water level on
pump operation requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA,
and potential environmental impact have been evaluated and found to
be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 ft MSL to 60.5
ft MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring
the water level in the PSW pump well of the intake structure is
sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby service water pumps to
supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days. The proposed TS
change does not result in or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level on pump operation
requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change revises the minimum water level in the
PSW pump well, as required by SR 3.7.2.1, from 60.7 1t MSL to 60.5
1t MSL. TS SR 3.7.2.1 verifies that the UHS is OPERABLE by ensuring
the water level in the PSW pump well of the intake structure is
sufficient for the PSW, RHRSW and standby service water pumps to
supply post-LOCA cooling requirements for 30 days. The proposed TS
change does not result in or require any physical changes to HNP
systems, structures, and components. The potential impact of the
lower PSW pump well minimum water level on pump operation
requirements, supply of water for 30 days post-LOCA, and potential
environmental impact have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Nancy L. Salgado.
[[Page 53931]]
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: May 2, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and Cooling
Systems,'' to replace the 10-year surveillance frequency for testing
the containment spray nozzles as required by TS Surveillance
Requirement 3.6.6.8 with an event-based frequency.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Containment Spray System and its spray nozzles are not
accident initiators and therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident.
The revised surveillance requirement will require event-based
Frequency verification in lieu of fixed Frequency verification. The
proposed change does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity
of any plant structure, system, or component that may initiate an
analyzed event. The proposed change will not alter the operation or
otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment
that can initiate an analyzed accident.
This change does not affect the plant design. There is no
increase in the likelihood of formation of significant corrosion
products. Due to their location at the top of the containment,
introduction of foreign material into the spray headers is unlikely.
Foreign material introduced during maintenance activities would be
the most likely source for obstruction, and verification following
such maintenance would confirm the nozzles remain unobstructed.
Since the Containment Spray System will continue to be available to
perform its accident mitigation function, the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
are not significantly affected by the proposed change.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not physically alter the plant (no new
or different type of equipment will be installed) or change the
methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does
not introduce new accident initiators or impact assumptions made in
the safety analysis. Testing requirements continue to demonstrate
that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are functional.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The system is not susceptible to corrosion-induced obstruction
or obstruction from sources external to the system. Maintenance
activities that could introduce foreign material into the system
would require subsequent verification to ensure there is no nozzle
blockage. The spray header nozzles are expected to remain unblocked
and available in the event that the safety function is required.
Therefore, the capacity of the system would remain unaffected. The
proposed change does 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 this change.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2012.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam
Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection,''
using the consolidated line item improvement program (CLIIP). The NRC
staff issued a notice of availability of the model for referencing in
license amendment applications in the Federal Register on October 27,
2011 (76 FR 66763).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to
modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG
tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event
is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a
plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency
and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG
tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not
increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the
conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The
proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed
those assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 changes to the SG Program will not introduce any
adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents
resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does
not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In
addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system
or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes
also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant
from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG
is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design,
environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed
change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The
proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical
condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in
the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 53932]]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N. Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
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 are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland
Date of application for amendments: August 8, 2011, as supplemented
by letters dated January 11, May 7, and July 18, 2012.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,''
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.11 by revising the required power
factor value to be achieved by the diesel generators (DGs) during
conduct of the surveillance test. The proposed change would also modify
the existing note in SR 3.8.1.11 to allow the DG to not achieve the
required power factor if the grid conditions do not permit and the test
is performed with DG synchronized with offsite power.
Date of issuance: August 22, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance to be implemented within
90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 302 and 279.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 29, 2011 (76
FR 73729).
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 22, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of application for amendment: July 17, 2011, as supplemented
by two letters dated August 9, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR) Section 9.7.2.1.2, and Appendix B to provide
additional operating margin for measurement of the Ultimate Heat Sink
(UHS) temperature. The proposed change to Appendix B is to remove a
license condition that is no longer needed.
Date of issuance: August 10, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 311.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the License and Appendix B.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, and final determination of no significant
hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August
10, 2012.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: George A. Wilson.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of application for amendment: October 28, 2011, as
supplemented on May 16, 2012.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment request would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to increase the condensate storage
tank low water level setpoint for the interlock to the high pressure
coolant injection pump suction valves. Additionally, the amendment
would correct typographical errors in TS numbering and referencing made
in prior license amendment nos. 223 and 228.
Date of issuance: August 7, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 237.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the
License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 10, 2012 (77 FR
1517).
The supplemental letter dated May 16, 2012, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 53933]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: July 26, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the change revised the
minimum indicated nitrogen cover pressure specified for the
accumulators in TS surveillance requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3 from 617 psig
(pounds per square inch, gauge) to 626 psig. The amendments also
correct a typographical error in the text associate with SR 3.6.2.1
changing the word ``rage'' to ``rate.''
Date of issuance: August 14, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-166 and Unit 2-148.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 6, 2011.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: August 23, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
application of Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) to
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and Cleanup
Filtration System.'' The amendments corrected a potential
misapplication of the Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) that
is currently allowed by the TSs.
Date of issuance: August 14, 2012.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-199; Unit 2-187.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 1, 2011 (76 FR
67490).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2012.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to
[email protected].
[[Page 53934]]
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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 Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on the
Internet at the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in accessing the document,
contact the PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. 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
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.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To the extent that the applications contain attachments and
supporting documents that are not publicly available because they
are asserted to contain safeguards or proprietary information,
petitioners desiring access to this information should contact the
applicant or applicant's counsel and discuss the need for a
protective order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha
designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical--primarily concerns/issues relating to technical and/
or health and safety matters discussed or referenced in the
applications.
2. Environmental--primarily concerns/issues relating to matters
discussed or referenced in the environmental analysis for the
applications.
3. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined
above.
As specified in 10 CFR 2.309, if two or more petitioners/requestors
seek to co-sponsor a contention, the petitioners/requestors shall
jointly designate a representative who shall have the authority to act
for the petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention. If a
requestor/petitioner seeks to adopt the contention of another
sponsoring requestor/petitioner, the requestor/petitioner who seeks to
adopt the contention must either agree that the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner shall act as the representative with respect to that
contention, or jointly designate with the sponsoring requestor/
petitioner a representative who shall have the authority to act for the
petitioners/requestors with respect to that contention.
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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including
a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at
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 NRC's E-Filing system does not
[[Page 53935]]
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 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
available on the NRC 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 NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC`s Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email at
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
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. 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of August 2012.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-21545 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P