Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 30184-30191 [2014-12018]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30184
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
our offerings that will improve the
overall visitor experience. NARA invites
the public to comment on the proposed
information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 28, 2014 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to: Paperwork Reduction Act Comments
(ISSD), Room 4400, National Archives
and Records Administration, 8601
Adelphi Rd, College Park, MD 20740–
6001; or faxed to 301–713–7409; or
electronically mailed to
tamee.fechhelm@nara.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Please direct requests for additional
information, copies of the proposed
information collection, or copies of the
supporting statement to Tamee
Fechhelm at telephone number 301–
837–1694, or fax number 301–713–7409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13), NARA invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to comment on proposed
information collections. The comments
and suggestions should address one or
more of the following points: (a)
Whether the proposed information
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of NARA;
(b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of
the burden of the proposed information
collection; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including
the use of information technology; and
(e) whether small businesses are
affected by this collection. NARA will
summarize submitted comments and
include the summary in NARA’s request
for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval of the information
collection. All comments will become a
matter of public record. In this notice,
NARA is soliciting comments
concerning the following information
collection:
Title: NARA Visitors Study
OMB number: 3095–0067
Agency form number: N/A
Type of review: Regular
Affected public: Visitors to the
National Archives Experience in
Washington, DC
Estimated number of respondents:
200
Estimated time per response: 12
minutes
Frequency of response: On occasion
(when a person visits the NAE in
Washington, DC)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:30 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
Estimated total annual burden hours:
40 hours
Abstract: The general purpose of this
voluntary data collection is to
benchmark the performance of the NAE
in relation to other history museums.
Information collected from visitors will
assess overall impact, expectations,
presentation, logistics, motivation,
demographic profile, and learning
experience. Once NARA has analyzed it,
this collected information will assist
NARA in determining the NAE’s
success in achieving its goals.
Dated: May 19, 2104.
Swarnali Haldar,
Acting Executive for Information Services/
CIO.
[FR Doc. 2014–12145 Filed 5–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
[NARA–2014–033]
Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS), Freedom of
Information Act Advisory Committee
Meeting
National Archives and Records
Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app 2) and the second United
States Open Government National
Action Plan (NAP) released on
December 5, 2013, NARA announces the
following committee meeting to discuss
improvements to the administration of
FOIA and its policy matters.
DATES: The meeting is on June 24, 2014,
from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
ADDRESSES: National Archives and
Records Administration; 700
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist’s
Board Room, Washington, DC 20408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
meeting will be open to the public.
However, due to space limitations and
access procedures, individuals planning
to attend must submit their name, email,
and telephone number to the Office of
Government Information Services
(OGIS) no later than Tuesday, June 10,
2014. OGIS will call or email with
additional instructions for access to the
meeting, and will provide updates on
the OGIS blog post.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christa Lemelin, Designated Federal
Officer for this committee, at NARA/
OGIS, 800 N. Capital Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; by telephone at
(202) 741–5773; or by email at
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Christa.Lemelin@nara.gov. You may
also contact OGIS at OGIS@NARA.gov.
Dated: May 21, 2014.
Patrice Little Murray,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–12146 Filed 5–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Permits Issued Under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under
the Antarctic Conservation of 1978,
Public Law 95–541.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is required to publish
notice of permits issued under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.
This is the required notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Li
Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer,
Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,
National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Or by email: ACApermits@nsf.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
16, 2014 the National Science
Foundation published a notice in the
Federal Register of a permit application
received. The permit was issued on May
19, 2014 to: Andrew G. Fountain Permit
No. 2014–031.
SUMMARY:
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of
Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–12031 Filed 5–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0122]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
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 April 31,
2014 to May 14, 2014. The last biweekly
notice was published on May 13, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by June
26, 2014. A request for a hearing must
be filed by July 28, 2014.
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–2014–0122. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0122 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
publicly-available information related to
this action by any of the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0122.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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.
Documents may be viewed in ADAMS
by performing a search on the document
date and docket number.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–
0122 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
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.
I. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30185
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,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the 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’s 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
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30186
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the 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
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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/
getting-started.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 Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:30 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al.
(FPL), Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389,
St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida
Date of amendment request: February
26, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14077A265.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise technical
specification (TS) requirements for
mode change limitations in Limited
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and
Surveillance Requirements 4.0.4. The
proposed changes would be consistent
with the NRC approved Industry
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Standard TS change TSTF–359,
‘‘Increase Flexibility in Mode
Restraints,’’ Revision 9.
The NRC issued a notice of
opportunity for comment in the Federal
Register (FR) on August 2, 2002 (67 FR
50475), on possible amendments
concerning TSTF–359, including a
model safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination, using the
consolidated line item improvement
process (CLIIP). Subsequently, on April
4, 2003, the NRC published the Notice
of Availability for TSTF–359, Revision 8
in the Federal Register (68 FR 16579).
That Notice announced the availability
of this TS improvement through the
CLIIP. The NRC subsequently made two
modifications in response to comments,
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30187
as well as one editorial change, which
have been incorporated into TSTF–359,
Revision 9. The changes proposed in the
licensee’s submittal are, therefore, based
on TSTF–359, Revision 9. FPL affirmed
the applicability of the following NSHC
determination in its application dated
February 26, 2014.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, as was published
in the Federal Register is presented
below:
Criterion 1—The proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a
mode or other specified condition in the
applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
statement and the associated required actions
of the TS. Being in a TS condition and the
associated required actions is not an initiator
of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly
increased. The consequences of an accident
while relying on required actions as allowed
by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than
the consequences of an accident while
entering and relying on the required actions
while starting in a condition of applicability
of the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated are not
significantly affected by this change. The
addition of a requirement to assess and
manage the risk introduced by this change
will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2—The proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
Entering into a mode or other specified
condition in the applicability of a TS, while
in a TS condition statement and the
associated required actions of the TS, will
not introduce new failure modes or effects
and will not, in the absence of other
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose
consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition
of a requirement to assess and manage the
risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3—The proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The proposed change allows entry into a
mode or other specified condition in the
applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
statement and the associated required actions
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
30188
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
of the TS. The TS allow operation of the
plant without the full complement of
equipment through the conditions for not
meeting the TS Limiting Conditions for
Operation (LCO). The risk associated with
this allowance is managed by the imposition
of required actions that must be performed
within the prescribed completion times. The
net effect of being in a TS condition on the
margin of safety is not considered significant.
The proposed change does not alter the
required actions or completion times of the
TS. The proposed change allows TS
conditions to be entered, and the associated
required actions and completion times to be
used in new circumstances. This use is
predicated upon the licensee’s performance
of a risk assessment and the management of
plant risk. The change also eliminates current
allowances for utilizing required actions and
completion times in similar circumstances,
without assessing and managing risk. The net
change to the margin of safety is
insignificant.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above
and the previous discussion of the
amendment request, the requested change
does not involve a significant hazards
consideration.
The NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe
Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL
33408–0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M.
Regner.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Indiana Michigan Power Company
(I&M), Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 7,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14071A435.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2, Technical Specification 5.5.14,
‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,’’ by adopting Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 94–01 Revision 3–A,
‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix J’’ (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12221A202), as the
implementing document for the
performance-based Option B of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix J.
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:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:33 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 5.5.14
changes the testing period to a permanent 15year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT). The current
test interval of 10 years would be extended
to 15 years from the last Type A test. The
proposed extension to Type A testing does
not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident since research
documented in NUREG–1493, ‘‘PerformanceBased Containment System Leakage Testing
Requirements,’’ September 1995, has found
that, generically, very few potential
containment leakage paths are not identified
by Type B and C tests. NUREG–1493
concluded that reducing the Type A testing
frequency to one per twenty years was found
to lead to an imperceptible increase in risk.
A high degree of assurance is provided
through testing and inspection that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
detectable only by Type A testing. The last
Type A test (November 2006) shows leakage
to be below acceptance criteria, indicating a
very leak tight containment. Inspections
required by the ASME Code Section Xl
(Subsections IWE and IWL) and Maintenance
Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65,
‘‘Requirements for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear
Power Plants[’’]) are performed in order to
identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect that leak
tightness. Types B and C testing required by
[technical specifications (TSs)] will identify
any containment opening such as valves that
would otherwise be detected by the Type A
tests. These factors show that a Type A test
interval extension will not represent a
significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
The proposed amendment involves
changes to the [Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
(CNP)] Units 1 and 2 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The
proposed amendment does not involve a
physical change to the plant or a change in
the manner in which the units are operated
or controlled. The primary containment
function is to provide an essentially leak
tight barrier against the uncontrolled release
of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the
containment itself and the testing
requirements to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant’s ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of
an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the [U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)]accepted guidelines of [Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI)] 94–01, Revision 3–A, for
development of the CNP performance-based
leakage testing program. Implementation of
these guidelines continues to provide
adequate assurance that during design basis
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accidents, the primary containment and its
components will limit leakage rates to less
than the values assumed in the plant safety
analyses. The potential consequences of
extending the [integrated leak rate testing
(ILRT)] interval from 10 years to 15 years
have been evaluated by analyzing the
resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk
in terms of person-rem per year resulting
from design basis accidents was estimated to
be acceptably small, and the increase in the
[large early release frequency (LERF)]
resulting from the proposed change was
determined to be within the guidelines
published in NRC [Regulatory Guide (RG)]
1.174. Additionally, the proposed change
maintains defense-in-depth by preserving a
reasonable balance among prevention of core
damage, prevention of containment failure,
and consequence mitigation. [Indiana
Michigan Power Company (I&M)] has
determined that the increase in [conditional
containment failure probability (CCFP)] due
to the proposed change would be very small.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed amendment does not significantly
increase the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 5.5.14
changes the testing period to a permanent 15year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT[)]. The
current test interval of 10 years, based on
past performance, would be extended to 15
years from the last Type A test (November
2006). The proposed extension to Type A
testing does not create the possibility of a
new or different type of accident since there
are no physical changes being made to the
plant and there are no changes to the
operation of the plant that could introduce a
new failure mode creating an accident or
affecting the mitigation of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 5.5.14
changes the testing period to a permanent 15year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT[)]. The
current test interval of 10 years, based on
past performance, would be extended to 15
years from the last Type A test (November
2006). The proposed extension to Type A
testing will not significantly reduce the
margin of safety. NUREG–1493,
‘‘Performance-Based Containment System
Leakage Testing Requirements,’’ September
1995, generic study of the effects of
extending containment leakage testing, found
that a 20 year extension to Type A leakage
testing resulted in an imperceptible increase
in risk to the public. NUREG–1493 found
that, generically, the design containment
leakage rate contributes about 0.1% to the
individual risk and that the decrease in Type
A testing frequency would have a minimal
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
effect on this risk since 95% of the potential
leakage paths are detected by Type C testing.
Regular inspections required by the ASME
Code Section Xl (Subsections IWE and IWL)
and maintenance rule monitoring (10 CFR
50.65, ‘‘Requirements for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear
Power Plants[‘‘]) will further reduce the risk
of a containment leakage path going
undetected.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision
3–A, for development of the CNP
performance-based leakage testing program,
and establishes a 15-year interval for the
performance of the primary containment
ILRT. The amendment does not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system setpoints, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The specific
requirements and conditions of the 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix J Testing Program Plan, as
defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of
primary containment structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant
safety analyses is maintained. The overall
containment leakage rate limit specified by
the TS is maintained, and the Type A, B, and
C containment leakage tests will continue to
be performed at the frequencies established
in accordance with the NRC-accepted
guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision 3–A.
Containment inspections performed in
accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
that is detectable only by an ILRT. In
addition, CNP has a containment monitoring
capability for the detection of gross
containment leakage that may develop during
power operation. This combination of factors
ensures that evidence of containment
structural degradation is identified in a
timely manner. Furthermore, a risk
assessment using the current CNP PRA
model concluded that extending the ILRT
test interval from 10 years to 15 years results
in a very small change to the CNP risk
profile.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in margin
of safety.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD 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: Robert B.
Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Docket Nos.: 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 18,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14108A196.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:33 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
Description of amendment request:
The proposed license amendment
request would revise the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in
regard to Tier 2* information related to
fire area boundaries. These changes add
three new fire zones in the middle
annulus to provide enclosures for the
Class 1E electrical containment
penetrations in accordance with UFSAR
Appendix 9A, Subsection 9A.3.1.1.15.
The addition of the three new fire zones
extended the fire area boundaries for
three existing fire areas and therefore
constitutes a change to Tier 2*
information. Additionally, the licensee
proposed changes that require revisions
to UFSAR Tier 2 information involving
changes to plant-specific Tier 2*
information.
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 middle annulus fire barrier
reconfiguration for the electrical penetrations
would not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment or function. The modified
configuration for the Class 1E electrical
containment penetration enclosures will
maintain the fire protection function (i.e.,
barrier) as evaluated in Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR), thus, the
probability of a Class 1E electrical
containment penetration failure is not
significantly increased. The safe shutdown
fire analysis is not affected, and the fire
protection analysis results are not adversely
affected. The proposed changes do not
involve any accident, initiating event or
component failure; thus, the probabilities of
previously evaluated accidents are not
affected. The maximum allowable leakage
rate specified in the Technical Specifications
is unchanged, and radiological material
release source terms are not affected; thus,
the radiological releases in the accident
analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The addition of enclosures constructed of
three-hour rated fire barriers to separate the
fire zones in the middle annulus for the Class
1E electrical penetration assemblies will
maintain the fire protection function as
evaluated in the UFSAR. The addition of the
fire barriers does not affect the function of
the Class 1E electrical containment
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30189
penetrations or electrical penetration
assemblies, and thus, does not introduce a
new failure mode. The addition of the fire
barriers does not create a new fault or
sequence of events that could result in a
radioactive material release.
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 use of enclosures constructed of threehour rated fire barriers to separate the fire
zones in the middle annulus for the Class 1E
electrical penetration assemblies will
maintain the fire protection function as
evaluated in the UFSAR. The use of the fire
barriers does not affect the ability of the Class
1E electrical containment penetrations,
electrical penetration assemblies, or the
containment to perform their design
function. The Class 1E electrical containment
penetrations and electrical penetration
assemblies within the enclosures continue to
comply with the existing design codes and
regulatory criteria, and do not affect any
safety limit. The use of fire barriers and
enclosures to separate the Class 1E electrical
penetration assemblies does not adversely
affect any margin of safety.
Therefore, 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: M. Stanford
Blanton, Blach & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
III. 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,
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
30190
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
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 for amendments:
October 30, 2012, as supplemented on
January 21, June 11, September 3,
October 21, and December 2, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments create new Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.19, ‘‘Spent Fuel
Pool Cooling (SFPC) Purification System
Isolation from Borated Water Storage
Tank (BWST),’’ and 3.9.8, ‘‘Reverse
Osmosis (RO) System Operating
Restrictions for Spent Fuel Pool (SFP),’’
for the operation of an RO system to
remove silica from the BWSTs and
SFPs.
Date of Issuance: April 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 385, 387, and 386.
A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14106A418; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
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: November 26, 2013, 78 FR
70591.
The supplemental letters dated
January 21, June 11, September 3,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:30 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
October 21, and December 2, 2013,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as noticed,
and did not change the staff’s 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 April 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
June 10, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated November 6, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modify the Technical
Specifications (TSs) and Facility
Operating Licenses (FOLs) to: (1)
Increase the allowable as-found safety
relief valve (SRV) and safety valve (SV)
lift setpoint tolerance from ±1% to ±3%;
(2) increase the required number of
operable SRVs and SVs from 11 to 12;
and (3) increase the Standby Liquid
Control System pump discharge
pressure from 1255 pounds per square
inch gauge (psig) to 1275 psig.
Date of issuance: May 5, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendments Nos.: 290 and 293. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14079A102;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 26, 2013 (78 FR
78406). The letter dated November 6,
2013, provided clarifying information
that did not change the initial proposed
no significant hazards consideration
determination or expand the application
beyond the scope of the original Federal
Register notice.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 5, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: June 4,
2013.
Description of amendment: The
license amendment revised Technical
Specifications 5.3.1 and 6.9.1.7 to allow
the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as an
approved fuel rod cladding material at
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2; added two approved analytical
methods; and made minor corrections to
the titles of two approved topical
reports.
Date of issuance: May 9, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented with
120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 249 and 253. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14058B029;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
24 and DPR–27: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR
64545).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment:
January 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.3.1 and SR
3.7.4.1 which currently require
operating the standby gas treatment
(SGT) and control room emergency
filtration (CREF) systems for at least 10
continuous hours with the heaters
operating every 31 days. The SRs are
changed to require at least 15
continuous minutes of ventilation
system operation without heaters
operating every 31 days, and include TS
Bases changes summarizing and
clarifying the purpose of the TSs in
accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler TSTF–522, Revision 0,
‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Notices
per Month’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100890316). The amendment also
removes the electric heater output
testing requirement from TS 5.5.6,
‘‘Ventilation Filter Testing Program
(VFTP).’’
Date of issuance: May 2, 2014.
Effective date: This amendment is
effective as of its date of issuance and
shall be implemented within 120 days
from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 181. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14058A825;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
22: This amendment revises the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14134).
The supplemental letter dated December
27, 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 May 2, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 25,
2013, as supplemented by the letter
dated November 21, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises Tier 2* and
associated Tier 2 information,
incorporated into the VEGP Units 3 and
4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Specifically, the amendment
revises the following information
related to fire area boundaries: (1)
Various Annex Building and Turbine
Building layout changes, (2) Turbine
Building Stairwell S08 changes to
support egress functions, and (3) an
Annex Building Heating, Ventilation
and Air Conditioning shaft UFSAR
figure clarification.
Date of issuance: May 1, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 19. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14050A445;
documents related to these amendments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
21:30 May 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 9, 2013, 2013 (78 FR
41118).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 1, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of May 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–12018 Filed 5–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–1048: EA–14–044: NRC–
2014–0098]
30191
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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.
• 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.
Raynard Wharton, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–287–9196; email:
Raynard.Wharton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In the Matter of Tennessee Valley
Authority, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation: Order Modifying License
(Effective Immediately)
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Order; modification.
I. Introduction
Pursuant to § 2.106 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
the NRC is providing notice, in the
matter of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) Order Modifying
License (Effective Immediately).
II. Further Information
AGENCY:
I
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has issued a general
license to the Tennesse Valley Authority
(TVA), authorizing the operation of the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),
in accordance with its regulations. The
Order is being issued to Exelon because
Exelon has identified near term plans to
store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the
general license provisions of the NRC’s
regulations.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2014–0098 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–2014–0098. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The NRC has issued a general license
to TVA, authorizing the operation of an
ISFSI, in accordance with the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10
CFR Part 72. This Order is being issued
to TVA because TVA has identified
near-term plans to store spent fuel in an
ISFSI under the general license
provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The
Commission’s regulations at 10 CFR
72.212(b)(5), 10 CFR 50.54(p)(1), and 10
CFR 73.55(c)(5) require licensees to
maintain safeguards contingency plan
procedures to respond to threats of
radiological sabotage and to protect the
spent fuel against the threat of
radiological sabotage, in accordance
with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C.
Specific physical security requirements
are contained in 10 CFR 73.51 or 73.55,
as applicable.
Inasmuch as an insider has an
opportunity equal to, or greater than,
any other person, to commit radiological
sabotage, the Commission has
determined these measures to be
prudent. Comparable Orders have been
issued to all licensees that currently
store spent fuel or have identified near-
E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM
27MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30184-30191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12018]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0122]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to
[[Page 30185]]
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 April 31, 2014 to May 14, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 13, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 26, 2014. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 28, 2014.
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-2014-0122. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0122 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
access publicly-available information related to this action by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0122.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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.
Documents may be viewed in ADAMS by performing a search on the document
date and docket number.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0122 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
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.
I. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the 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's 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
[[Page 30186]]
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.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the 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
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov,
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the 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/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID
[[Page 30187]]
certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so
that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call 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 these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al. (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-335 and
50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: February 26, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14077A265.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
technical specification (TS) requirements for mode change limitations
in Limited Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and Surveillance
Requirements 4.0.4. The proposed changes would be consistent with the
NRC approved Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard TS change TSTF-359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode
Restraints,'' Revision 9.
The NRC issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the Federal
Register (FR) on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475), on possible amendments
concerning TSTF-359, including a model safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). Subsequently, on
April 4, 2003, the NRC published the Notice of Availability for TSTF-
359, Revision 8 in the Federal Register (68 FR 16579). That Notice
announced the availability of this TS improvement through the CLIIP.
The NRC subsequently made two modifications in response to comments, as
well as one editorial change, which have been incorporated into TSTF-
359, Revision 9. The changes proposed in the licensee's submittal are,
therefore, based on TSTF-359, Revision 9. FPL affirmed the
applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application
dated February 26, 2014.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, as was published in the
Federal Register is presented below:
Criterion 1--The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified
condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a
TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator
of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The
consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as
allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the
consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the
required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of
the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The
addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced
by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the
applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the
associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new
failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change will further minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified
condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition
[[Page 30188]]
statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS
allow operation of the plant without the full complement of
equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS Limiting
Conditions for Operation (LCO). The risk associated with this
allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must
be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect
of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered
significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions
or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS
conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and
completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is
predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and
the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current
allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in
similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net
change to the margin of safety is insignificant.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not
involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14071A435.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical
Specification 5.5.14, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by
adopting Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01 Revision 3-A, ``Industry
Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202), as the implementing
document for the performance-based Option B of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
J.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 5.5.14 changes the testing period to
a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Option B, ILRT). The current test interval of 10 years
would be extended to 15 years from the last Type A test. The
proposed extension to Type A testing does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident since research
documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment System
Leakage Testing Requirements,'' September 1995, has found that,
generically, very few potential containment leakage paths are not
identified by Type B and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that reducing
the Type A testing frequency to one per twenty years was found to
lead to an imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree of
assurance is provided through testing and inspection that the
containment will not degrade in a manner detectable only by Type A
testing. The last Type A test (November 2006) shows leakage to be
below acceptance criteria, indicating a very leak tight containment.
Inspections required by the ASME Code Section Xl (Subsections IWE
and IWL) and Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65,
``Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at
Nuclear Power Plants['']) are performed in order to identify
indications of containment degradation that could affect that leak
tightness. Types B and C testing required by [technical
specifications (TSs)] will identify any containment opening such as
valves that would otherwise be detected by the Type A tests. These
factors show that a Type A test interval extension will not
represent a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the [Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant (CNP)] Units 1 and 2 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J
Testing Program Plan. The proposed amendment does not involve a
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the
units are operated or controlled. The primary containment function
is to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself and the
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not involve any accident
precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)]-accepted guidelines of [Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)] 94-01, Revision 3-A, for development of the CNP performance-
based leakage testing program. Implementation of these guidelines
continues to provide adequate assurance that during design basis
accidents, the primary containment and its components will limit
leakage rates to less than the values assumed in the plant safety
analyses. The potential consequences of extending the [integrated
leak rate testing (ILRT)] interval from 10 years to 15 years have
been evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes in risk. The
increase in risk in terms of person-rem per year resulting from
design basis accidents was estimated to be acceptably small, and the
increase in the [large early release frequency (LERF)] resulting
from the proposed change was determined to be within the guidelines
published in NRC [Regulatory Guide (RG)] 1.174. Additionally, the
proposed change maintains defense-in-depth by preserving a
reasonable balance among prevention of core damage, prevention of
containment failure, and consequence mitigation. [Indiana Michigan
Power Company (I&M)] has determined that the increase in
[conditional containment failure probability (CCFP)] due to the
proposed change would be very small.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 5.5.14 changes the testing period to
a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Option B, ILRT[)]. The current test interval of 10
years, based on past performance, would be extended to 15 years from
the last Type A test (November 2006). The proposed extension to Type
A testing does not create the possibility of a new or different type
of accident since there are no physical changes being made to the
plant and there are no changes to the operation of the plant that
could introduce a new failure mode creating an accident or affecting
the mitigation of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 5.5.14 changes the testing period to
a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Option B, ILRT[)]. The current test interval of 10
years, based on past performance, would be extended to 15 years from
the last Type A test (November 2006). The proposed extension to Type
A testing will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. NUREG-
1493, ``Performance-Based Containment System Leakage Testing
Requirements,'' September 1995, generic study of the effects of
extending containment leakage testing, found that a 20 year
extension to Type A leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible
increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493 found that, generically,
the design containment leakage rate contributes about 0.1% to the
individual risk and that the decrease in Type A testing frequency
would have a minimal
[[Page 30189]]
effect on this risk since 95% of the potential leakage paths are
detected by Type C testing. Regular inspections required by the ASME
Code Section Xl (Subsections IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule
monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants[``]) will
further reduce the risk of a containment leakage path going
undetected.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A, for development of the CNP performance-based
leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval for the
performance of the primary containment ILRT. The amendment does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
J Testing Program Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the degree
of primary containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that
is considered in the plant safety analyses is maintained. The
overall containment leakage rate limit specified by the TS is
maintained, and the Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests will
continue to be performed at the frequencies established in
accordance with the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
3-A. Containment inspections performed in accordance with other
plant programs serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by
an ILRT. In addition, CNP has a containment monitoring capability
for the detection of gross containment leakage that may develop
during power operation. This combination of factors ensures that
evidence of containment structural degradation is identified in a
timely manner. Furthermore, a risk assessment using the current CNP
PRA model concluded that extending the ILRT test interval from 10
years to 15 years results in a very small change to the CNP risk
profile.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14108A196.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
request would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
in regard to Tier 2* information related to fire area boundaries. These
changes add three new fire zones in the middle annulus to provide
enclosures for the Class 1E electrical containment penetrations in
accordance with UFSAR Appendix 9A, Subsection 9A.3.1.1.15. The addition
of the three new fire zones extended the fire area boundaries for three
existing fire areas and therefore constitutes a change to Tier 2*
information. Additionally, the licensee proposed changes that require
revisions to UFSAR Tier 2 information involving changes to plant-
specific Tier 2* information.
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 middle annulus fire barrier reconfiguration for the
electrical penetrations would not adversely affect any safety-
related equipment or function. The modified configuration for the
Class 1E electrical containment penetration enclosures will maintain
the fire protection function (i.e., barrier) as evaluated in Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), thus, the probability of a
Class 1E electrical containment penetration failure is not
significantly increased. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not
affected, and the fire protection analysis results are not adversely
affected. The proposed changes do not involve any accident,
initiating event or component failure; thus, the probabilities of
previously evaluated accidents are not affected. The maximum
allowable leakage rate specified in the Technical Specifications is
unchanged, and radiological material release source terms are not
affected; thus, the radiological releases in the accident analyses
are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The addition of enclosures constructed of three-hour rated fire
barriers to separate the fire zones in the middle annulus for the
Class 1E electrical penetration assemblies will maintain the fire
protection function as evaluated in the UFSAR. The addition of the
fire barriers does not affect the function of the Class 1E
electrical containment penetrations or electrical penetration
assemblies, and thus, does not introduce a new failure mode. The
addition of the fire barriers does not create a new fault or
sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material
release.
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 use of enclosures constructed of three-hour rated fire
barriers to separate the fire zones in the middle annulus for the
Class 1E electrical penetration assemblies will maintain the fire
protection function as evaluated in the UFSAR. The use of the fire
barriers does not affect the ability of the Class 1E electrical
containment penetrations, electrical penetration assemblies, or the
containment to perform their design function. The Class 1E
electrical containment penetrations and electrical penetration
assemblies within the enclosures continue to comply with the
existing design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not affect any
safety limit. The use of fire barriers and enclosures to separate
the Class 1E electrical penetration assemblies does not adversely
affect any margin of safety.
Therefore, 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
III. 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,
[[Page 30190]]
and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
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 for amendments: October 30, 2012, as
supplemented on January 21, June 11, September 3, October 21, and
December 2, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments create new
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.19, ``Spent Fuel Pool Cooling (SFPC)
Purification System Isolation from Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST),''
and 3.9.8, ``Reverse Osmosis (RO) System Operating Restrictions for
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP),'' for the operation of an RO system to remove
silica from the BWSTs and SFPs.
Date of Issuance: April 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 385, 387, and 386. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14106A418; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
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: November 26, 2013, 78
FR 70591.
The supplemental letters dated January 21, June 11, September 3,
October 21, and December 2, 2013, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as noticed, and did not change the staff's 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 April 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 10, 2013, as supplemented
by letter dated November 6, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) and Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs)
to: (1) Increase the allowable as-found safety relief valve (SRV) and
safety valve (SV) lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) increase the required number of operable SRVs and SVs
from 11 to 12; and (3) increase the Standby Liquid Control System pump
discharge pressure from 1255 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to
1275 psig.
Date of issuance: May 5, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 290 and 293. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14079A102; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78
FR 78406). The letter dated November 6, 2013, provided clarifying
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond
the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 5, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: June 4, 2013.
Description of amendment: The license amendment revised Technical
Specifications 5.3.1 and 6.9.1.7 to allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLO\TM\ as an approved fuel rod cladding material at the Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; added two approved analytical methods;
and made minor corrections to the titles of two approved topical
reports.
Date of issuance: May 9, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
with 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 249 and 253. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14058B029; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR
64545).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: January 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.3.1 and SR
3.7.4.1 which currently require operating the standby gas treatment
(SGT) and control room emergency filtration (CREF) systems for at least
10 continuous hours with the heaters operating every 31 days. The SRs
are changed to require at least 15 continuous minutes of ventilation
system operation without heaters operating every 31 days, and include
TS Bases changes summarizing and clarifying the purpose of the TSs in
accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours
[[Page 30191]]
per Month'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML100890316). The amendment also
removes the electric heater output testing requirement from TS 5.5.6,
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).''
Date of issuance: May 2, 2014.
Effective date: This amendment is effective as of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 181. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14058A825; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment revises the
Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR
14134). The supplemental letter dated December 27, 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 May 2, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 25, 2013, as supplemented by the
letter dated November 21, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Tier 2* and
associated Tier 2 information, incorporated into the VEGP Units 3 and 4
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the
amendment revises the following information related to fire area
boundaries: (1) Various Annex Building and Turbine Building layout
changes, (2) Turbine Building Stairwell S08 changes to support egress
functions, and (3) an Annex Building Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning shaft UFSAR figure clarification.
Date of issuance: May 1, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 19. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14050A445; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2013, 2013 (78
FR 41118).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 1, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-12018 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
