Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 6638-6645 [2014-02048]
Download as PDF
6638
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
II. Presentation with the External
Auditor
III. Executive Session with the External
Auditor
IV. Executive Session with the Chief
Audit Executive
V. Executive Session with Officers:
Pending Litigation & Internal
Operations
VI. Internal Audit Reports with
Management’s Response
VII. Internal Audit Status Reports
VIII. Compliance Update
IX. OHTS Watch List Review
X. Adjournment
Jeffrey T. Bryson,
EVP & General Counsel/Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–02398 Filed 1–31–14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7570–02–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0016]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 January 9,
2014, to January 22, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on
January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3412).
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–2014–0016. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
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:
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.
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
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
§ 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 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0016 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
publicly-available information related to
this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0016.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this 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–
0016 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts 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
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
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/doccollections/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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6639
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s public
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/sitehelp/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’s
guidance available on the NRC’s public
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6640
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. A filing is
considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
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 public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866 672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–528, 50–529, and 50–
530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa
County, Arizona.
Date of amendment request:
September 27, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.3, ‘‘Control
Element Assembly Calculators
(CEACS),’’ to reinstate an inadvertently
omitted 4-hour completion time to
Required Action B.2.2. Additionally, the
amendment would revise a test
frequency note within a Surveillance
Requirement (SR) under TS 3.3.6,
‘‘Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System (ESFAS) Logic and Manual
Trip,’’ which should have been
addressed in the license amendment
request for Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF–425, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control—
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative
5b.’’
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 reinstatement of the 4-hour
completion time within TS 3.3.3 does not
alter existing controls on plant operation (i.e.,
safety limit values, [Limiting Conditions for
Operation (LCOs)], Surveillance
Requirements or Design Features). Functions
which are necessary to operate the facility
safely and in accordance with the operating
licenses remain in effect. The proposed
change will not affect the operation of
structures, systems, or components, and will
not reduce programmatic controls such that
the plant safety would be affected.
The revision to the SR testing frequency
note under TS 3.3.6 relocates the specified
frequency to licensee control under the
Surveillance Frequency Control Program
(SFCP). 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 this frequency is
being relocated are still required to be
operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the
surveillance requirement, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed
in the accident analysis.
Based on the above, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The reinstatement of the 4-hour
completion time within TS 3.3.3 is an
administrative correction. It will not affect
the operation of structures, systems, or
components, and will not reduce
programmatic controls such that plant safety
would be affected.
No new or different accidents result from
the revision to the SR testing frequency note
under TS 3.3.6. The change does not involve
a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new
or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. In
addition, this change does not impose any
new or different requirements. This change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis. This change is consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice.
Based on the above, 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 reinstatement of the 4-hour
completion time within TS 3.3.3 is
administrative and will not diminish any
administrative controls currently in place.
The proposed change will not affect the
operation of structures, systems, or
components, and will not reduce
programmatic controls such that plant safety
would be affected.
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 Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to the
TS), since these are not affected by the
proposed change which will revise the SR
testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6.
Similarly, there is no impact to safety
analysis acceptance criteria as described in
the plant licensing basis.
Based on the above, the proposed
amendment 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: Michael G.
Green, Associate General Counsel—
Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle
West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box
52034, Mail Stop 7602, Phoenix,
Arizona 85072–2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
September 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments requests transition of
the fire protection licensing basis at
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.48(b),
to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 805.
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.
Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in
accordance with the proposed amendment
does not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report documents the analyses of
design basis accidents at Catawba Nuclear
Station. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect accident initiators nor alter
design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility and does not
adversely affect the ability of structures,
systems, and components to perform their
design function. Structures, systems, and
components required to safely shut down the
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition will remain capable of performing
their design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to
permit Catawba Nuclear Station to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC
considers that NFPA 805 provides an
acceptable methodology and performance
criteria for licensees to identify Fire
Protection system and features that are an
acceptable alternative to Catawba Nuclear
Station’s existing fire protection
requirements. Engineering Analyses, in
accordance with NFPA 805, have been
performed to demonstrate that the riskinformed performance-based requirements
for NFPA 805 have been met.
The NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides
an acceptable alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b)
and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and General
Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR
Part 50 and meets the underlying intent of
the NRC’s existing fire protection regulations
and guidance, and achieves defense-in depth
and the goals, performance objectives, and
performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 of
the standard. The small increases in core
damage frequency associated with the LAR
submittal are consistent with the
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6641
Commission’s Safety Goal Policy.
Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) allows selfapproval of the fire protection program
changes post-transition. If there are any
increases post-transition in core damage
frequency or risk, the increase will be small
and consistent with the intent of the
Commission’s Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of this
amendment does not significantly increase
the probability of any accident previously
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an
accident remains capable of performing the
assumed function.
Therefore, the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased with the
implementation of the amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in
accordance with the proposed amendment
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. Any scenario or
previously analyzed accident with offsite
dose was included in the evaluation of
design basis accidents documented in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The
proposed change does not alter the
requirements or function for systems
required during accident conditions.
Implementation of the new Fire Protection
licensing basis which complies with the
requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and
the guidance in RG 1.205 will not result in
new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect accident initiators nor alter
design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect the
ability of structure, systems, and components
to perform their design function. Structure,
systems, and components required to safely
shut down the reactor and maintain it in a
safe shutdown condition remain capable of
performing their design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to
permit Catawba Nuclear Station to adopt a
new Fire Protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG
1.205. The NRC considers that the NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify
Fire Protection systems and features that are
an acceptable alternative to Catawba Nuclear
Station’s existing fire protection
requirements.
The requirements in the NFPA 805 address
only Fire Protection and the impacts of fire
on the plant have already been evaluated.
Based on this, the implementation of this
amendment does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
kind of accident previously evaluated. The
proposed changes do not involve new failure
mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate
a new accident.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any kind of
accident previously evaluated is not created
with the implementation of this amendment.
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
6642
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in
accordance with the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The proposed
amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this
change. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins
or the reliability of equipment assumed to
mitigate accidents in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect the
ability of Structure, Systems, and
Components to perform their design
function. Structure, Systems, and
Components required to safely shut down the
reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to
permit Catawba Nuclear Station to adopt a
new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG
1.205. The NRC considers that the NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and
performance criteria for licensees to identify
Fire Protection systems and features that are
an acceptable alternative to Catawba Nuclear
Station’s existing fire protection
requirements. Engineering analyses, which
may include engineering evaluations,
probabilistic safety assessments, and fire
modeling calculations, have been performed
to demonstrate that the performance-based
methods do not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on this, the implementation of this
amendment does not significantly reduce the
margin of safety. The proposed changes are
evaluated to ensure that risk and safety
margins are kept within acceptable limits.
Therefore, the transition does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NFPA 805 continues to protect public
health and safety and the common defense
and security because the overall approach of
the NFPA 805 is consistent with the key
principles for evaluating license basis
changes, as described in RG 1.174, is
consistent with the defense-in-depth
philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety
margins.
Margins previously established for the
Catawba Nuclear Station Fire Protection
program in accordance with existing fire
protection requirements are not significantly
reduced.
Therefore, this amendment does not result
in 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment requests:
November 15, 2013.
Description of amendment requests:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specification
requirements related to the response
time for the main steam line flow-high
isolation function.
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 increase in Main Steam Line
(MSL) High Flow Isolation System
Instrumentation Response Time from ≤ 0.5
seconds to ≤ 1.0 seconds does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated (i.e., Main Steam Line Break
(MSLB)). GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, using
the SAFER04A Engineering Computer
Program (SAFER), has performed an analysis
of the impact to existing MSLB analysis using
1.0 seconds as the new response time input
for the instrument channel high flow trip
signal. The analysis concluded that for the
worst case conditions, which is the Hot
Standby initial operating condition, by
increasing the instrument delay for Main
Steam Line Isolation Valve (MSIV) actuation
from 0.5 seconds to 1.0 seconds, the water
mass release is increased by about 12%, the
steam mass release is increased by about 8%,
and the total coolant mass release increased
by about 12% to 115,700 pounds mass (lbm).
The major source of coolant activity which
contributes to the released dose is contained
in the coolant that is initially released in the
liquid water phase. The enveloping total
coolant mass release for radiological
consequence evaluation is 140,000 lbm
liquid; therefore, the MSLB total coolant
mass release values calculated in this
analysis remain bounded and the original
MSLB Accident Dose Evaluation remains
unchanged.
In regards to Peak Cladding Temperatures
(PCT), the MSLB Accident is considered in
evaluating a plant’s response for fuel
integrity and barrier protection to Loss of
Coolant Accidents (LOCAs). Specifically, the
MSLB Accident breaks either inside
containment or outside containment are
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
considered for fuel heat-up and neither
scenario is limiting for Peak Cladding
Temperature. The MSLB LOCA PCT response
is not affected by the proposed amendment.
There are no special events analyses
(Anticipated Transient Without Scram
(ATWS), Fire Safe Shutdown, or Station
Blackout) that consider main steam line
breaks.
For building compartments that contain
safety related equipment, the proposed
increase in the instrument response time
does not impact the calculated peak
pressures and temperatures that occur at
approximately 1.0 seconds since the
blowdown flow is not impacted until the
MSIVs are assumed to start closing at 5.0
seconds. However, the increase in response
time could have an impact on the overall
duration of the blowdown. The MSL High
Energy Line Break (HELB) Analysis was
revised to conservatively assume that the
MSIVs remain fully open for 6.0 seconds (5.0
seconds + 1.0 seconds) and the total
blowdown duration was increased from 6.5
seconds to 7.0 seconds. The revised HELB
analysis confirmed that the critical peak
temperatures and pressures did not change in
building compartments containing safety
related equipment and that the only impact
was a less than 4.0-degree Fahrenheit
increase in the main condenser area
compartment and steam venting plenum
compartment peak temperatures. These two
compartments do not contain safety-related
environmentally qualified equipment.
Therefore, this minimal increase in peak
temperature has no adverse impact on the
plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in MSL High Flow
Isolation System Instrumentation Response
Time from ≤ 0.5 seconds to ≤ 1.0 seconds
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change
only affects the primary containment
isolation system response time, which is a
mitigating system, for which the effects have
been specifically evaluated for impact to the
MSLB Accident and found to be acceptable.
There are no special events analyses (ATWS,
Fire Safe Shutdown, or Station Blackout) that
consider main steam line breaks. The
pressure and temperature of affected
compartments do not affect the
environmental qualification or performance
of safety related equipment.
The instrument channel logic delay time
associated with this proposal was not
postulated as an initiator of any previously
analyzed accident, and is not expected to
create any new system interactions, transient
precursors, or failure modes of any
structures, systems and components (SSCs).
Thus, equipment important to safety will
continue to operate as designed, and the
proposed change will not result in any
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
adverse conditions or any increase in
challenges to safety systems.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in MSL High Flow
Isolation System Instrumentation Response
Time from ≤ 0.5 seconds to ≤ 1.0 seconds
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The proposed change will
increase the total calculated total coolant
mass release from 108,785 lbm to 115,700
lbm. The change in the total coolant mass
release of 6,915 lbm is well within the
current available margin (∼31,200 lbm) to the
140,000 lbm bounding value used for the
radiological consequence evaluation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley
Fewell, Esquire, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville,
IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G.
Lamb.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request:
December 12, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment will revise
the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station Technical Specifications (TSs).
The proposed amendment will adopt TS
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–522,
Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Ventilation System
Surveillance Requirements to Operate
for 10 Hours per Month.’’
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 the NRC’s edits in
square brackets:
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 an existing
SR [surveillance requirement] to operate the
Standby Gas Treatment System for a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
minimum of 10 hours at a frequency
controlled in accordance with the SFCP
[Surveillance Frequency Control Program]
with a requirement to operate the system for
a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP.
This system is not an accident initiator and
therefore, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident. The proposed change is consistent
with current regulatory guidance for this
system and will continue to assure that this
system performs its design function which
may include mitigating accidents. Thus, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
SR to operate the Standby Gas Treatment
System for a minimum of 10 hours at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP with a requirement to operate the
system for a minimum of 15 continuous
minutes at a frequency controlled in
accordance with the SFCP.
The change proposed for this ventilation
system 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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
SR to operate the Standby Gas Treatment
System for a minimum of 10 hours at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP with a requirement to operate the
system for a minimum of 15 continuous
minutes at a frequency controlled in
accordance with the SFCP. 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 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment requests
involve no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley
Fewell, Associate General Counsel,
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6643
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G.
Lamb.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP)
Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request:
December 20, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Emergency
Plan, in accordance with 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix E, Section 1.5, to comply
with the regulatory changes published
in the Federal Register on November 23,
2011, (76 FR 72560), ‘‘Enhancements to
Emergency Preparedness Regulations.’’
Eleven topics for change were described
in the published rule.
In addition, the requested amendment
proposes to change License Condition
2.D(12)(d) of the VEGP Units 3 and 4
Combined Licenses to require a detailed
staffing analysis to be performed no
later than 180 days before initial fuel
load.
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 VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan
provides assurance that the requirements of
emergency preparedness regulations are met.
The changes do not affect the design,
construction, or operation of the nuclear
plant, so there is no change to the probability
or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. Adding a license condition related
to an emergency preparedness staffing
analysis and changing the VEGP 3 and 4
Emergency Plan does not affect prevention
and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g.,
accidents, anticipated operational
occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses as
the purpose of the plan is to implement
emergency preparedness regulations. No
safety-related structure, system, component
(SSC) or function is adversely affected. The
change does not involve nor interface with
any SSC accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]
UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes
do not involve any SSC or function used to
mitigate an accident, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve an increase in the probability or
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
6644
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
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 VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan
provides assurance that the requirements of
emergency preparedness regulations are met.
The changes do not affect the design,
construction, or operation of the nuclear
plant, so there is no new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The changes do not affect safetyrelated equipment, nor do they affect
equipment which, if it failed, could initiate
an accident or a failure of a fission product
barrier. In addition, the changes do not result
in a new failure mode, malfunction or
sequence of events that could affect safety or
safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan
provides assurance that the requirements of
emergency preparedness regulations are met.
The changes do not affect the assessments or
the plant itself. The changes do not affect
safety-related equipment or equipment
whose failure could initiate an accident, nor
does it adversely interface with safety-related
equipment or fission product barriers. No
safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not reduce the margin of safety.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:14 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270 and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments:
June 27, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated December 14, 2012, May
28, July 26, November 26, December 6,
and December 12, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—
Operating,’’ Required Action C.2.2.5 to
allow a temporary one-time Completion
Time extension of 62 days to restore an
inoperable Keowee Hydro Unit (KHU)
for the purpose of performing generator
field pole rewind work on each KHU.
Date of Issuance: January 8, 2014.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 383, 385, and 384.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47 and DPR–55:
Amendments revised the license and
the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60149).
The supplemental letters dated
December 14, 2012, May 28, July 26,
November 26, December 6, and
December 12, 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 amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated January 8, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,
Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment:
November 19, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated September 13, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment changed the Technical
Specification 3.7.10 to require a unit
shutdown within the TS 3.7.10 Actions
instead of entering Limiting Condition
for Operation 3.0.3 when both Control
Room Emergency Ventilation System
(CREVS) trains are inoperable in MODE
1, 2, 3, or 4 due to actions taken as a
result of a tornado warning and the
Completion Time of 8 hours for
restoration of at least one CREVS train
to OPERABLE status is not met.
Date of issuance: January 14, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented no
later than 60 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 94.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
90: Amendment revised the License and
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR
16886). The supplement letter dated
September 13, 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
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 2014 / Notices
Safety Evaluation dated January 14,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: None.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment:
August 29, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated November 9, 2011, April 17
and July 12, 2012, and February 19,
August 5, September 24, and December
19, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment transitions the Callaway
Plant fire protection program to a riskinformed, performance-based program
based on the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 805, in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.48(c). The NFPA 805
allows the use of performance-based
methods such as fire modeling and riskinformed methods such as fire
probabilistic risk assessment to
demonstrate compliance with the
nuclear safety performance criteria.
Date of issuance: January 13, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented by 8
months from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 206.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register :February 14, 2012 (77 FR
8294). The supplements dated
November 9, 2011, April 17 and July 12,
2012, and February 19, August 5,
September 24, and December 19, 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 January 13,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment:
December 20, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated June 6 and August 29,
2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised a methodology in
the licensing basis as described in the
Final Safety Analysis Report—Standard
Plant to include damping values for the
seismic design and analysis of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:48 Feb 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
integrated head assembly that are
consistent with the recommendations of
the NRC’s Regulatory Guide 1.61,
‘‘Damping Values for Seismic Design of
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ Revision 1,
March 2007.
Date of issuance: January 14, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 207.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
30: The amendment revised the
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14139).
The supplemental letters dated June 6
and August 29, 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 January 14,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of January 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–02048 Filed 2–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Applications and Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request;
opportunity to comment, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to
intervene; order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of two amendment
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requests. The amendment requests are
for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating,
Units 3 and 4; and Seabrook Station,
Unit 1. For each amendment request,
the NRC proposes to determine that they
involve no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, each
amendment request contains sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information
(SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by
March 6, 2014. A request for a hearing
must be filed by April 7, 2014. Any
potential party as defined in § 2.4 of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), who believes
access to SUNSI is necessary to respond
to this notice must request document
access by February 14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comment
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–2014–0008. 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:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
[NRC–2014–0008]
SUMMARY:
6645
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0008 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
publicly-available information related to
this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0008.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM
04FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6638-6645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02048]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0016]
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 January 9, 2014, to January 22, 2014. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3412).
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-2014-0016. 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:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0016 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this action by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0016.
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-2014-0016 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts 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,
[[Page 6639]]
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 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 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
public 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's guidance
available on the NRC's public
[[Page 6640]]
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 public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and
50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Maricopa County, Arizona.
Date of amendment request: September 27, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3, ``Control Element Assembly
Calculators (CEACS),'' to reinstate an inadvertently omitted 4-hour
completion time to Required Action B.2.2. Additionally, the amendment
would revise a test frequency note within a Surveillance Requirement
(SR) under TS 3.3.6, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System
(ESFAS) Logic and Manual Trip,'' which should have been addressed in
the license amendment request for Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
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 reinstatement of the 4-hour completion time within TS 3.3.3
does not alter existing controls on plant operation (i.e., safety
limit values, [Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs)],
Surveillance Requirements or Design Features). Functions which are
necessary to operate the facility safely and in accordance with the
operating licenses remain in effect. The proposed change will not
affect the operation of structures, systems, or components, and will
not reduce programmatic controls such that the plant safety would be
affected.
The revision to the SR testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6
relocates the specified frequency to licensee control under the
Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). 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 this frequency is
being relocated are still required to be operable, meet the
acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirement, and be capable
of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident
analysis.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 6641]]
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The reinstatement of the 4-hour completion time within TS 3.3.3
is an administrative correction. It will not affect the operation of
structures, systems, or components, and will not reduce programmatic
controls such that plant safety would be affected.
No new or different accidents result from the revision to the SR
testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6. The change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of
equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation. In addition, this change does not impose any
new or different requirements. This change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. This change is consistent
with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating
practice.
Based on the above, 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 reinstatement of the 4-hour completion time within TS 3.3.3
is administrative and will not diminish any administrative controls
currently in place. The proposed change will not affect the
operation of structures, systems, or components, and will not reduce
programmatic controls such that plant safety would be affected.
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 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases
to the TS), since these are not affected by the proposed change
which will revise the SR testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6.
Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria
as described in the plant licensing basis.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment 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: Michael G. Green, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation,
P.O. Box 52034, Mail Stop 7602, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments requests
transition of the fire protection licensing basis at Catawba Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2 from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 50.48(b), to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 805.
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.
Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the
proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences
of accidents previously evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report documents the analyses of design basis accidents at Catawba
Nuclear Station. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect
accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems, and components to perform their
design function. Structures, systems, and components required to
safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit Catawba Nuclear
Station to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA
805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify Fire Protection system and features that are
an acceptable alternative to Catawba Nuclear Station's existing fire
protection requirements. Engineering Analyses, in accordance with
NFPA 805, have been performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed
performance-based requirements for NFPA 805 have been met.
The NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable
alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b) and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and
General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and meets
the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection
regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in depth and the
goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in
Chapter 1 of the standard. The small increases in core damage
frequency associated with the LAR submittal are consistent with the
Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c)
allows self-approval of the fire protection program changes post-
transition. If there are any increases post-transition in core
damage frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent
with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains
capable of performing the assumed function.
Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased with the implementation of the
amendment.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Any scenario or previously analyzed accident with offsite dose was
included in the evaluation of design basis accidents documented in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change does
not alter the requirements or function for systems required during
accident conditions. Implementation of the new Fire Protection
licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG 1.205 will not result in new
or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of structure, systems, and components
to perform their design function. Structure, systems, and components
required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design
functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit Catawba Nuclear
Station to adopt a new Fire Protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in RG 1.205. The NRC considers that the NFPA 805 provides
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to
identify Fire Protection systems and features that are an acceptable
alternative to Catawba Nuclear Station's existing fire protection
requirements.
The requirements in the NFPA 805 address only Fire Protection
and the impacts of fire on the plant have already been evaluated.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind
of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not
involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a
new accident.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created with the implementation of this amendment.
[[Page 6642]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or
the reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed amendment does
not adversely affect the ability of Structure, Systems, and
Components to perform their design function. Structure, Systems, and
Components required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their
design functions.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit Catawba Nuclear
Station to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in RG 1.205. The NRC considers that the NFPA 805 provides
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to
identify Fire Protection systems and features that are an acceptable
alternative to Catawba Nuclear Station's existing fire protection
requirements. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering
evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling
calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the
performance-based methods do not result in a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes are
evaluated to ensure that risk and safety margins are kept within
acceptable limits. Therefore, the transition does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and
the common defense and security because the overall approach of the
NFPA 805 is consistent with the key principles for evaluating
license basis changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with
the defense-in-depth philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety
margins.
Margins previously established for the Catawba Nuclear Station
Fire Protection program in accordance with existing fire protection
requirements are not significantly reduced.
Therefore, this amendment does not result in 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment requests: November 15, 2013.
Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specification requirements related to the response
time for the main steam line flow-high isolation function.
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 increase in Main Steam Line (MSL) High Flow
Isolation System Instrumentation Response Time from <= 0.5 seconds
to <= 1.0 seconds does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
(i.e., Main Steam Line Break (MSLB)). GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy,
using the SAFER04A Engineering Computer Program (SAFER), has
performed an analysis of the impact to existing MSLB analysis using
1.0 seconds as the new response time input for the instrument
channel high flow trip signal. The analysis concluded that for the
worst case conditions, which is the Hot Standby initial operating
condition, by increasing the instrument delay for Main Steam Line
Isolation Valve (MSIV) actuation from 0.5 seconds to 1.0 seconds,
the water mass release is increased by about 12%, the steam mass
release is increased by about 8%, and the total coolant mass release
increased by about 12% to 115,700 pounds mass (lbm). The major
source of coolant activity which contributes to the released dose is
contained in the coolant that is initially released in the liquid
water phase. The enveloping total coolant mass release for
radiological consequence evaluation is 140,000 lbm liquid;
therefore, the MSLB total coolant mass release values calculated in
this analysis remain bounded and the original MSLB Accident Dose
Evaluation remains unchanged.
In regards to Peak Cladding Temperatures (PCT), the MSLB
Accident is considered in evaluating a plant's response for fuel
integrity and barrier protection to Loss of Coolant Accidents
(LOCAs). Specifically, the MSLB Accident breaks either inside
containment or outside containment are considered for fuel heat-up
and neither scenario is limiting for Peak Cladding Temperature. The
MSLB LOCA PCT response is not affected by the proposed amendment.
There are no special events analyses (Anticipated Transient
Without Scram (ATWS), Fire Safe Shutdown, or Station Blackout) that
consider main steam line breaks.
For building compartments that contain safety related equipment,
the proposed increase in the instrument response time does not
impact the calculated peak pressures and temperatures that occur at
approximately 1.0 seconds since the blowdown flow is not impacted
until the MSIVs are assumed to start closing at 5.0 seconds.
However, the increase in response time could have an impact on the
overall duration of the blowdown. The MSL High Energy Line Break
(HELB) Analysis was revised to conservatively assume that the MSIVs
remain fully open for 6.0 seconds (5.0 seconds + 1.0 seconds) and
the total blowdown duration was increased from 6.5 seconds to 7.0
seconds. The revised HELB analysis confirmed that the critical peak
temperatures and pressures did not change in building compartments
containing safety related equipment and that the only impact was a
less than 4.0-degree Fahrenheit increase in the main condenser area
compartment and steam venting plenum compartment peak temperatures.
These two compartments do not contain safety-related environmentally
qualified equipment. Therefore, this minimal increase in peak
temperature has no adverse impact on the plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in MSL High Flow Isolation System
Instrumentation Response Time from <= 0.5 seconds to <= 1.0 seconds
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change
only affects the primary containment isolation system response time,
which is a mitigating system, for which the effects have been
specifically evaluated for impact to the MSLB Accident and found to
be acceptable. There are no special events analyses (ATWS, Fire Safe
Shutdown, or Station Blackout) that consider main steam line breaks.
The pressure and temperature of affected compartments do not affect
the environmental qualification or performance of safety related
equipment.
The instrument channel logic delay time associated with this
proposal was not postulated as an initiator of any previously
analyzed accident, and is not expected to create any new system
interactions, transient precursors, or failure modes of any
structures, systems and components (SSCs). Thus, equipment important
to safety will continue to operate as designed, and the proposed
change will not result in any
[[Page 6643]]
adverse conditions or any increase in challenges to safety systems.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed increase in MSL High Flow Isolation System
Instrumentation Response Time from <= 0.5 seconds to <= 1.0 seconds
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The
proposed change will increase the total calculated total coolant
mass release from 108,785 lbm to 115,700 lbm. The change in the
total coolant mass release of 6,915 lbm is well within the current
available margin (~31,200 lbm) to the 140,000 lbm bounding value
used for the radiological consequence evaluation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G. Lamb.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: December 12, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will
revise the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical
Specifications (TSs). The proposed amendment will adopt TS Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month.''
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 the NRC's edits in
square brackets:
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 an existing SR [surveillance
requirement] to operate the Standby Gas Treatment System for a
minimum of 10 hours at a frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program] with a requirement to
operate the system for a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP.
This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, this
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed change is consistent with current
regulatory guidance for this system and will continue to assure that
this system performs its design function which may include
mitigating accidents. Thus, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate the
Standby Gas Treatment System for a minimum of 10 hours at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement
to operate the system for a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP.
The change proposed for this ventilation system 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate the
Standby Gas Treatment System for a minimum of 10 hours at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement
to operate the system for a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP. 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G. Lamb.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Emergency Plan, in accordance with 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix E, Section 1.5, to comply with the regulatory changes
published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011, (76 FR 72560),
``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations.'' Eleven topics
for change were described in the published rule.
In addition, the requested amendment proposes to change License
Condition 2.D(12)(d) of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses to
require a detailed staffing analysis to be performed no later than 180
days before initial fuel load.
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 VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan provides assurance that the
requirements of emergency preparedness regulations are met. The
changes do not affect the design, construction, or operation of the
nuclear plant, so there is no change to the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Adding a license
condition related to an emergency preparedness staffing analysis and
changing the VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan does not affect prevention
and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles,
or their safety or design analyses as the purpose of the plan is to
implement emergency preparedness regulations. No safety-related
structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely
affected. The change does not involve nor interface with any SSC
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes
do not involve any SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase
in the probability or
[[Page 6644]]
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 VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan provides assurance that the
requirements of emergency preparedness regulations are met. The
changes do not affect the design, construction, or operation of the
nuclear plant, so there is no new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. The changes do not affect safety-
related equipment, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed,
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product
barrier. In addition, the changes do not result in a new failure
mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or
safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan provides assurance that the
requirements of emergency preparedness regulations are met. The
changes do not affect the assessments or the plant itself. The
changes do not affect safety-related equipment or equipment whose
failure could initiate an accident, nor does it adversely interface
with safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce 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. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
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 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application of amendments: June 27, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated December 14, 2012, May 28, July 26, November 26,
December 6, and December 12, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' Required Action
C.2.2.5 to allow a temporary one-time Completion Time extension of 62
days to restore an inoperable Keowee Hydro Unit (KHU) for the purpose
of performing generator field pole rewind work on each KHU.
Date of Issuance: January 8, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 383, 385, and 384.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR
60149). The supplemental letters dated December 14, 2012, May 28, July
26, November 26, December 6, and December 12, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 8, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of application for amendment: November 19, 2012, as
supplemented by letter dated September 13, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Technical
Specification 3.7.10 to require a unit shutdown within the TS 3.7.10
Actions instead of entering Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.3 when
both Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) trains are
inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 4 due to actions taken as a result of a
tornado warning and the Completion Time of 8 hours for restoration of
at least one CREVS train to OPERABLE status is not met.
Date of issuance: January 14, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than 60 days from date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 94.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR
16886). The supplement letter dated September 13, 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
[[Page 6645]]
Safety Evaluation dated January 14, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: August 29, 2011, as supplemented
by letters dated November 9, 2011, April 17 and July 12, 2012, and
February 19, August 5, September 24, and December 19, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment transitions the
Callaway Plant fire protection program to a risk-informed, performance-
based program based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). The NFPA 805 allows the use of
performance-based methods such as fire modeling and risk-informed
methods such as fire probabilistic risk assessment to demonstrate
compliance with the nuclear safety performance criteria.
Date of issuance: January 13, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
by 8 months from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 206.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register :February 14, 2012 (77
FR 8294). The supplements dated November 9, 2011, April 17 and July 12,
2012, and February 19, August 5, September 24, and December 19, 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 January 13, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated June 6 and August 29, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised a methodology
in the licensing basis as described in the Final Safety Analysis
Report--Standard Plant to include damping values for the seismic design
and analysis of the integrated head assembly that are consistent with
the recommendations of the NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.61, ``Damping
Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1, March
2007.
Date of issuance: January 14, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 207.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR
14139). The supplemental letters dated June 6 and August 29, 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 January 14, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of January 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-02048 Filed 2-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P