Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 3412-3420 [2014-00877]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3412-3420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00877]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0010]


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 (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 December 26, 2013 to January 8, 2014. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 7, 2014 (79 FR 855).

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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0010. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 3413]]

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0010 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this document by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0010.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the 
search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-
based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this document (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0010 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 you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely 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 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.
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 Sec.  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 ``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 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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends

[[Page 3414]]

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 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's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or 
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or 
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID 
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish 
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the 
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for 
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web 
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants 
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but 
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted 
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer 
assistance in using unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to 
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's 
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, 
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on 
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance 
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's Web site 
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email 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 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

[[Page 3415]]

electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
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).
    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 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 28, 2013. A publicly available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13304B445.
    Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains 
sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information. The amendments 
request for a one-time change to Technical Specification 3.8.4, ``DC 
Sources-Operating'' for battery replacement.
    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.
    Removing one vital battery from service for a limited period of 
time does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident.
    All four vital batteries have been sized to carry the load duty 
cycle for their respective bus/train while maintaining battery 
terminal voltage in a cross-tied alignment during a LOOP with a DBE 
on one unit and safe shut down of the other unit. The vital battery 
cross-tie alignment is part of the McGuire licensing basis, is in 
the Technical Specifications, and is routinely performed.
    In addition, for defense-in-depth and risk mitigation measures, 
a fully sized temporary battery will be available as a defense in 
depth, back-up DC power supply for plant recovery and accident 
mitigation.
    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.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed LAR does not create a 
new plant configuration, nor adversely affect how the plant is 
currently operated. During the time period of each vital battery 
bank replacement, the associated DC channel will remain energized by 
being cross-tied to another operable DC channel as designed and as 
allowed by TS 3.8.4. This is a normal plant alignment, it maintains 
train independence, and is performed numerous times during a fuel 
cycle for vital battery maintenance and surveillance testing. No new 
accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of this proposed 
LAR. No changes are being made to any structure, system, or 
component which will introduce any new accident causal mechanisms. 
The temporary battery remains physically and electrically isolated 
from the rest of the 125VDC system via an open disconnect switch. 
The cable between the spare charger and the disconnect will remain 
de-energized by isolation from the charger's DC output breaker and 
both crosstie breakers. This proposed LAR does not impact any plant 
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed LAR does not physically alter the present plant 
design nor affect how the plant is currently operated. This activity 
only extends the amount of time that vital DC channels are allowed 
to be cross-tied. So a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
does not occur.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include 
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant and 
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based upon the above evaluation, Duke Energy concludes that the 
proposed amendment presents no 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 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
incorporates Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
493-A, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for 
LSSS [limiting safety system settings] Functions,'' Option A. The 
availability of this Technical Specification (TS) improvement was 
announced in the Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26294). The 
proposed amendment would revise the TSs by adding requirements to 
assess channel performance during testing that verifies instrument 
channel setting values established by plant-specific setpoint 
methodologies to all the functions identified in TSTF-493, Revision 4, 
Appendix A.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the

[[Page 3416]]

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 adds test requirements to TS instrument 
Functions related to those variables that have a significant safety 
function to ensure that instruments will function as required to 
initiate protective systems or actuate mitigating systems at the 
point assumed in the applicable safety analysis.
    Surveillance tests are not an initiator to any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and 
components required by the TS for which surveillance Notes are added 
are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for 
the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any 
mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, 
i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but 
ensures that the instruments perform as assumed in the accident 
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds test requirements that will assure that 
TS instrumentation AVs [allowable values] (1) will be limiting 
settings for assessing instrument channel operability and (2) will 
be conservatively determined so that evaluation of instrument 
performance history and the ALT [as-left tolerance] requirements of 
the calibration procedures will not have an adverse effect on 
equipment operability. The testing methods and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components specified in applicable 
codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 
will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis 
including the updated FSAR [final safety analysis report]. There is 
no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the 
plant licensing basis because no change is made to the accident 
analysis assumptions.
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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: October 18, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the 
Beaver Valley Power Station Technical Specifications (TS). 
Specifically, this change request involves the adoption of an approved 
change to the standard TS for Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431), to 
allow relocation of specific TS surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program. The proposed change is described in TS Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocation Surveillance 
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML090850642). A Notice of Availability was published in 
the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996).
    The proposed change relocates surveillance frequencies to a 
licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program. This change is applicable to licensees using probabilistic 
risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, 
``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed 
Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML071360456).
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (that is, no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to the 
TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis.
    To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, 
[FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.] FENOC will perform a 
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC 
approved Nuclear Energy Instituted (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 
04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance 
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed 
changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 
1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk Informed 
Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications.''
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 3417]]


    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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G. Lamb.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: February 18, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Definitions and TS Sections 2.0.1 
and 2.7 for Inoperable System, Subsystem or Component Due to Inoperable 
Power Source. Specifically, the proposed amendment would: (1) Revise 
the definition for Operable--Operability in the Fort Calhoun Station 
TS; (2) modify the provisions under which equipment may be considered 
operable when either its normal or emergency power source is 
inoperable; and (3) revise the minimum requirement statement in TS 2.7 
to the wording previously reviewed and approved by the NRC in Amendment 
No. 147 dated August 2, 1992.
    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 to revise the definition of operable-
operability, modify the provisions under which equipment may be 
considered operable when either its normal or emergency power source 
is inoperable, add Technical Specification (TS) limiting conditions 
for operation (LCO) 2.0.1(2), and relocate the guidance for 
inoperable power supplies and verifying operability of redundant 
components into the LCO for electrical equipment is more aligned 
with NUREG-0212, Revision 2, Standard Technical Specifications [STS] 
for Combustion Engineering Plants, and does not adversely impact the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change 
does not affect the operability requirements for the emergency 
diesel generators (DGs) or the house service transformers, and 
therefore does not impact the consequences of an analyzed accident. 
In addition, the administrative changes to renumber the existing TS 
sections ``TS 2.0.1(2) to 2.0.1(3)'' is being made as a result of 
additions to previous TS paragraphs and are being made for 
consistency and clarification. Also, revising the minimum 
requirement statement in TS 2.7 to the wording previously reviewed 
and approved by the NRC in Amendment 147 is an administrative change 
as the wording reverted to its pre-Amendment 147. This wording 
simply corrects previous administrative errors when TS Amendment 162 
was issued on March 29, 1994.
    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 changes do not involve a physical alteration to the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant operation. 
The proposed changes to TS 2.0.1(2) and TS 2.7 do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident since the design 
function of the affected equipment is not changed. No new 
interactions between systems or components are created. No new 
failure mechanisms of associated systems will exist.
    No new failure mechanisms would be created. The proposed changes 
do not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to add TS 2.0.1(2) and relocate the 
guidance for inoperable power supplies and verifying operability of 
redundant components from TS LCO 2.7 do not alter the manner in 
which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are 
determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by these proposed changes. The sources of power credited for design 
basis events are not affected by the proposed changes.
    The proposed changes to modify the provisions under which 
equipment may be considered operable when either its normal or 
emergency power source is inoperable, and relocate the guidance for 
inoperable power supplies and verifying operability of redundant 
components into the
    TS 2.0.1 LCO is more aligned with the STS contained in NUREG-
0212.
    Further, the proposed change does not change the design function 
of any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an accident.
    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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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: November 27, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment 
reclassifies portions of the five Tier 2* Human Factors (HF) 
Verification & Validation (V&V) planning documents listed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 1.6-1 and Chapter 
18, Subsection 18.11.2. These five documents outline the overall plan 
for the HF V&V, including the Human Factors Engineering (HFE) design 
verification, task support verification, integrated system validation, 
discrepancy resolution process, and verification at plant startup. The 
licensee stated that the requested amendment identifies the portions of 
the five HF V&V planning documents that would more appropriately be 
classified as Tier 2, due to those portions having no impact on safety, 
and proposes the necessary departures to reclassify this information. 
This differentiation between Tier 2 and Tier 2* information in the HF 
V&V planning documents will allow for revisions of these documents 
using the Tier 2 change process provided in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, 
Section VIII.B.5.
    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 changes reclassify portions of the five Tier 2* 
Human Factors (HF) Verification & Validation (V&V) planning 
documents listed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). These changes do not modify the design, construction, or 
operation of any plant structures, systems, or components (SSC), nor 
do they change any procedures or method of control for any SSCs. 
Because the proposed changes do not change the design, construction, 
or operation of any SSCs, they do not adversely affect any

[[Page 3418]]

design function as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment does not affect the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated. Similarly, because the proposed changes do not alter the 
design or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs, the 
proposed changes do not represent a change to the radiological 
effects of an accident, and therefore, they do not involve an 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes are not a modification, addition to, or 
removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed changes are not 
a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or 
any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the 
reclassification of portions of the five HF V&V planning documents 
as Tier 2 information. Because the proposed amendment does not 
change the design, construction, or operation of the nuclear plant 
or any plant operations, it does not affect the possibility of an 
accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes reclassify portions of the five Tier 2* HF 
V&V planning documents listed in the UFSAR from Tier 2* to Tier 2. 
The proposed amendment only affects the classification of planning 
documents and does not change the design, construction, or operation 
of the nuclear plant or any plant operations; therefore, the changes 
do not affect any margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: September 26, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.7.10.1 and SR 3.7.13.1 to reduce the required run time for periodic 
operation of the control room pressurization system filter trains and 
emergency exhaust system filter trains, with heaters on, from 10 hours 
to 15 minutes, consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-522-A, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation 
System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' 
with minor variations. The Notice of Availability and model safety 
evaluation of the TS improvement were published in the Federal Register 
on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    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 replaces existing Surveillance Requirements 
to operate the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) and 
the Emergency Exhaust System (EES) for a continuous 10-hour period 
with applicable heaters operating at a frequency controlled in 
accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program], 
with requirements to operate these systems for 15 continuous minutes 
with applicable heaters operating at a frequency controlled in 
accordance with the SFCP.
    These systems are not accident initiators (i.e., their 
malfunction cannot initiate an accident or transient) and therefore, 
these changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident. The proposed system and filter testing 
changes are consistent with current regulatory guidance for these 
systems and will continue to assure that these systems perform their 
design function which may include mitigating accidents. Therefore, 
the change does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident.
    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 change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    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 design basis for the ventilation system heaters in the EES 
and in the pressurization trains of the CREVS includes the 
capability to heat the incoming air, reducing the relative humidity 
(and thereby increasing adsorber efficiency). The heater testing 
change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are 
capable of heating the air and will thus perform their design 
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory 
guidance.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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: John O'Neill, 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

[[Page 3419]]

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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of application for amendment: October 2, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated April 26, June 4, August 15, September 24, September 
26, October 14, November 12, December 5, and December 11, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TS) for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) 
to support operation with 24-month fuel cycles. Specifically, the 
change revised the frequency of certain TS Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs) from ``18 months'' to ``24 months,'' in accordance with the 
guidance of NRC's Generic Letter (GL) 91-04, ``Changes in Technical 
Specification Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel 
Cycle,'' dated April 2, 1991. Consistent with the GL, changes were also 
made to the Administrative Controls TS Section 5.5.7, ``Ventilation 
Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' to address changes to 18-month 
frequencies that are specified in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52, 
Revision 2, ``Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Post-
Accident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmosphere Cleanup System Air 
Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' March 1978, to 24-month frequencies. By letter dated December 
11, 2013, the licensee withdrew its April 26, 2013, request to modify 
SR 3.7.7.2 in TS 3.7.7, ``Main Turbine Bypass System.'' Therefore, the 
NRC staff neither evaluated a change to, nor changed, the surveillance 
interval of SR 3.7.7.2.
    Date of issuance: December 26, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 197.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 13, 2012 (77 
FR 67681). The supplemental letters dated April 26, June 4, August 15, 
September 24, September 26, October 14, November 12, December 5, and 
December 11, 2013, 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 as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 26, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of application for amendment: December 11, 2008, as 
supplemented by letters dated, May 20, 2008, May 28, 2008, May 30, 
2008, June 3, 2008, June 5, 2008, June 12, 2008, June 25, 2008, 
December 11, 2008, January 29, 2009, February 4, 2009 (2 letters), 
February 17, 2009, February 24, 2009, March 19, 2009, April 22, 2009, 
May 13, 2009, May 26, 2009, May 28, 2009, May 29, 2009, June 12, 2009, 
June 16, 2009, July 13, 2009, July 23, 2009, August 12, 2009 (2 
letters), August 19, 2009, August 21, 2009 (2 letters), August 26, 
2009, August 31, 2009, October 1, 2009, January 25, 2010, April 6, 
2010, December 21, 2010, June 30, 2010, April 5, 2011, July 7, 2011, 
August 30, 2011, November 11, 2011, January 13, 2012, July 19, 2012, 
July 19, 2012, September 28, 2012, October 21, 2012, October 22, 2012, 
October 30, 2012, November 30, 2012, January 21, 2013, January 31, 
2013, February 22, 2013, February 27, 2013, March 7, 2013, March 18, 
2013, March 21, 2013, March 29, 2013, April 10, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 
30, 2013, June 26, 2013, July 8, 2013, July 18, 2013 (2 letters), 
August 2, 2013, September 30, 2013, and November 8, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment increased the 
authorized maximum licensed thermal power level from the current 
licensed thermal power of 1,775 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2,004 MWt, 
which is an increase of approximately 13 percent. The proposed increase 
in power level is considered an extended power uprate.
    Date of issuance: December 9, 2013.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 176.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (74 FR 
4252). The supplemental letters dated May 20, 2008, May 28, 2008, May 
30, 2008, June 3, 2008, June 5, 2008, June 12, 2008, June 25, 2008, 
December 11, 2008, January 29, 2009, February 4, 2009 (2 letters), 
February 17, 2009, February 24, 2009, March 19, 2009, April 22, 2009, 
May 13, 2009, May 26, 2009, May 28, 2009, May 29, 2009, June 12, 2009, 
June 16, 2009, July 13, 2009, July 23, 2009, August 12, 2009 (2 
letters), August 19, 2009, August 21, 2009 (2 letters), August 26, 
2009, August 31, 2009, October 1, 2009, January 25, 2010, April 6, 
2010, December 21, 2010, June 30, 2010, April 5, 2011, July 7, 2011, 
August 30, 2011, November 11, 2011, January 13, 2012, July 19, 2012, 
July 19, 2012, September 28, 2012, October 21, 2012, October 22, 2012, 
October 30, 2012, November 30, 2012, January 21, 2013, January 31, 
2013, February 22, 2013, February 27, 2013, March 7, 2013, March 18, 
2013, March 21, 2013, March 29, 2013, April 10, 2013, May 13, 2013, May 
30, 2013, June 26, 2013, July 8, 2013, July 18, 2013 (2 letters), 
August 2, 2013, September 30, 2013, and November 8, 2013, 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 as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 9, 2013.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of January 2014.

[[Page 3420]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-00877 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P