Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 49104-49112 [2014-19386]
Download as PDF
49104
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
is seeking a Waste Permit to cover any
accidental releases that may result from
camping.
For UAV Filming: The applicant
wishes to fly small, battery operated,
remotely controlled copters equipped
with a cameras to take scenic photos
and film of the Antarctic. The UAVs
would not be flown over concentrations
of birds or mammals or over Antarctic
Specially Protected Areas. The UAVs
would only be flown by operators with
extensive experience (>20 hours), who
are pre-approved by the Expedition
Leader. Several measures would be
taken to prevent against loss of the UAV
including painting them a highly visible
color; only flying when the wind is less
than 25 knots; flying for only 15
minutes at a time to preserve battery
life; having prop guards on propeller
tips, a flotation device if operated over
water, and a ‘‘go home’’ feature in case
of loss of control link or low battery;
having an observer on the lookout for
wildlife, people, and other hazards; and
ensuring that the separation between the
operator and UAV does not exceed an
operational range of 500 meters. The
applicant is seeking a Waste Permit to
cover any accidental releases that may
result from flying a UAV.
Location
Camping: possible locations include
Damoy Point/Dorian Bay, Danco Island,
´
Ronge Island, the Errera Channel,
Paradise Bay (including Almirante
Brown/Base Brown or Skontorp Cove),
the Argentine Islands, Andvord Bay,
Pleneau Island, the Argentine Islands,
Hovgaard Island, Orne Harbour, Leith
Cove, Prospect Point and Portal Point.
UAV filming: Western Antarctic
Peninsula region
DATES:
November 12, 2014 to March 2, 2015.
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of
Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014–19593 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–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 Act of 1978,
Public Law 95–541.
AGENCY:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 May
19, 2014 the National Science
Foundation published a notice in the
Federal Register of a permit application
received. The permit was issued on
August 13, 2014 to: Dr. Rachael MorganKiss, Permit No. 2015–002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of
Polar Programs.
accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
See 10 CFR 2.302.
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th
day of August 2014.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2014–19675 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0189]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2014–19594 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]
[Docket Nos. IA–14–025–EA; ASLBP No.
14–932–02–EA–BD01]
James Chaisson; Establishment Of
Atomic Safety And Licensing Board
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission dated December 29, 1972,
see 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the
Commission’s regulations, see, e.g., 10
CFR 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313,
2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given
that an Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board (Board) is being established to
preside over the following proceeding:
James Chaisson
(Enforcement Action)
This Board is being established
pursuant to a hearing request submitted
by James Chaisson in response to an
‘‘Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRCLicensed Activities’’ issued on July 11,
2014 by the NRC Office of Enforcement,
and published in the Federal Register
on July 18, 2014 (79 FR 42,057).
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
Alex S. Karlin, Chairman,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Michael M. Gibson,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
Dr. Gary S. Arnold,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall be filed in
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from July 24,
2014 to August 6, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on
August 5, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
September 18, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 20,
2014.
SUMMARY:
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–2014–0189. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1384,
email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0189 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable 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–2014–0189.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable 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. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
• 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–
0189 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information in
comment submissions that you do not
want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will
post all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov as well as
enter the comment submissions into
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
ADAMS, and 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 into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49105
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
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/
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
49106
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
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
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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,
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
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 firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
the presiding officer subsequently
determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to this
license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection in
ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on obtaining
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of amendment request: October
2, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated
June 19, 2014. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13284A063 and
ML14188B450, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment incorporates
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–493–A, Revision
4, ‘‘Clarify Application of Setpoint
Methodology for LSSS [limiting safety
system settings] Functions,’’ Option A.
The availability of this Technical
Specification (TS) improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on
May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26294). The
proposed amendment would revise the
TSs by adding requirements to assess
channel performance during testing that
verifies instrument channel setting
values established by plant-specific
setpoint methodologies to all the
functions identified in TSTF–493,
Revision 4, Appendix A. Notice of this
action was previously published in the
Federal Register on January 21, 2014
(79 FR 3415). The renoticing of this
action is provided to include a
supplement to the licensee’s application
dated October 2, 2013, which is dated
June 19, 2014. This renotice replaces
and supersedes the Federal Register
notice of January 21, 2014, in its
entirety. The supplement dated June 19,
2014, added TS Table 3.3.6.2–1
Function 1 to the list of functions
included in the adoption of TSTF–493,
Revision 4, which is not included in
Appendix A of TSTF–493.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds test
requirements to TS instrument Functions
related to those variables that have a
significant safety function to ensure that
instruments will function as required to
initiate protective systems or actuate
mitigating systems at the point assumed in
the applicable safety analysis. Surveillance
tests are not an initiator to any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The
systems and components required by the TS
for which surveillance Notes are added are
still required to be operable, meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49107
acceptance criteria for the surveillance
requirements, and be capable of performing
any mitigation function assumed in the
accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant, i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed.
The change does not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis but ensures that the
instruments perform as assumed in the
accident analysis. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds test
requirements that will assure that TS
instrumentation AVs [allowable values] (1)
will be limiting settings for assessing
instrument channel operability and (2) will
be conservatively determined so that
evaluation of instrument performance history
and the ALT [as-left tolerance] requirements
of the calibration procedures will not have an
adverse effect on equipment operability. The
testing methods and acceptance criteria for
systems, structures, and components
specified in applicable codes and standards
(or alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the
plant licensing basis including the updated
FSAR [final safety analysis report]. There is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance
criteria as described in the plant licensing
basis because no change is made to the
accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A.
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006–
3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: April 4,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
49108
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14097A106.
Description of amendment request:
The Northern States Power Company
proposes to revise MNGP technical
specification (TS) 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling]—Operating.’’
Specifically, NSPM proposes to remove
TS 3.5.1, Condition F, which currently
provides a 72-hour Completion Time to
restore one Core Spray subsystem to
Operable status when both Core Spray
subsystems are inoperable.
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 provided below.
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The Core Spray subsystems are designed to
inject/spray the core after any size break up
to and including a design basis Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA). The proposed
change to revise the Completion Time does
not change the conditions, operating
configurations or the minimum amount of
operating equipment assumed in the safety
analysis for accident mitigation. No change is
proposed to the manner in which the Core
Spray System provides plant protection or
which would create new modes of plant
operation.
The proposed change will not affect the
probability of any event initiators. There will
be no degradation in the performance of, or
an increase in the number of challenges
imposed on, safety-related equipment
assumed to function during an accident
situation. There will be no change to normal
plant operating parameters or accident
mitigation performance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There is no hardware change nor is there
a change in the method by which any plant
systems perform a safety function. This
request does not affect the normal method of
plant operation.
The proposed change does not introduce
new equipment which could create a new or
different kind of accident. No new external
threats, release pathways, or equipment
failure modes are created. No new accident
scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of this request.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Response: No.
The Core Spray subsystems are capable of
providing water and removing heat loads to
satisfy the Updated Safety Analysis Report
requirements for accident mitigation or unit
safe shutdown.
There will be no change to the manner in
which the safety limits or limiting safety
system settings are determined, nor is there
a change to those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection
functions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass,
Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: April 30,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14125A239.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
change Technical Specification (TS)
section 3.2, Table 3–5, for Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit 1, to add a new
surveillance requirement similar to
standard TS to verify the correct
position of the valves required to restrict
flow in the high-pressure safety
injection system.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.2 Table 3–5 would add
a new surveillance requirement to verify the
position of valves required to restrict flow in
the high pressure safety injection system to
ensure adequate flow is maintained following
a design basis accident.
The proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated because: (1) The proposed
amendment does not represent a change to
the system design, (2) the proposed
amendment does not alter, degrade, or
prevent action described or assumed in any
accident Updated Safety Analysis Report
(USAR) from being performed, (3) the
proposed amendment does not alter any
assumptions previously made in evaluating
radiological consequences, and [4)] the
proposed amendment does not affect the
integrity of any fission product barrier. No
other safety related equipment is affected by
the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a surveillance
requirement to verify the position of valves.
The proposed change does not alter the
physical design, safety limits, or safety
analysis assumptions associated with the
operation of the plant. Hence, the proposed
change does not introduce any new accident
initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely
affect the capabilities of any plant structure
or system in the performance of their safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to add a new
surveillance requirement does not alter the
manner in which safety limits or limiting
safety system settings are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this proposed change. Further,
the proposed change does not change the
design function of any equipment assumed to
operate in the event of an accident. The
change only adds a requirement to
periodically verify the position of valves.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka,
Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street
NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R.
Oesterle.
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket No. 50–133, Humboldt Bay
Power Plant Unit 3, and Docket No. 72–
027, Humboldt Bay Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation, Humboldt
County, California
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14182A476.
Description of amendment request:
The license amendment request
proposes changes to the Humboldt Bay
(HB) site Emergency Plan (E-Plan). The
proposed changes are a reduction in the
emergency planning function
commensurate with the ongoing and
anticipated reduction in radiological
source term at the Humboldt Bay site.
These changes are a revised E-Plan
organization, the replacement of a
dedicated on-call emergency response
team with advisory personnel on an asneeded basis, the elimination of the
initiating events and emergency action
levels for Humboldt Bay Power Plant
(HBPP) Unit 3, and a revision to the
emergency action level (EAL)
information for the HB Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
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 change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a reduction in
the emergency planning function
commensurate with the ongoing and
anticipated reduction in radiological source
term at the HB site. These changes are a
revised E-Plan organization, the replacement
of a dedicated on-call emergency response
team with advisory personnel on an asneeded basis, the elimination of the initiating
events and emergency action levels for
Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3,
and a revision to the emergency action level
information for the HB ISFSI. There are no
longer credible events that would result in
doses to the public beyond the owner
controlled area boundary that would exceed
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs). HBPP
was shutdown in 1976 and was not restarted.
All spent fuel and Greater Than Class C
(GTCC) waste has been transferred to the
ISFSI. Emergency Planning Zones beyond the
owner controlled area and the associated
protective actions are no longer required. No
headquarters personnel, personnel involved
in off-site dose projections, or personnel with
special qualifications are required to augment
the HB Emergency Response Organization.
The credible events for the ISFSI remain
unchanged. The indications of damage to a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
loaded cask confinement boundary have been
revised to be twice the design basis dose rate
as described in Section 7.3.2.1 of the ISFSI
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (0.3
mrem/hr). This change is consistent with
industry practices previously approved by
the NRC for other ISFSIs to be able to
distinguish that a degraded condition exists.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a reduction in
the emergency planning function
commensurate with the ongoing and
anticipated reduction in radiological source
term at the HB site. These changes are a
revised E-Plan organization, the replacement
of a dedicated on-call emergency response
team with advisory personnel on an asneeded basis, the elimination of the initiating
events and EALs for HBPP, Unit 3, and a
revision to the EAL information for the HB
ISFSI. There are no longer credible events
that would result in doses to the public
beyond the owner controlled area boundary
that would exceed the EPA PAGs. HBPP was
shutdown in 1976 and was not restarted. All
spent fuel and GTCC waste has been
transferred to the ISFSI. Emergency Planning
Zones beyond the owner controlled area and
the associated protective actions are no
longer required. No headquarters personnel,
personnel involved in off-site dose
projections, or personnel with special
qualifications are required to augment the HB
Site Emergency Response Organization. The
proposed changes involve a revision to the
HP Site E-Plan only, and do not involve any
physical changes to the HB Site that would
create the possibility of a new or different
accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a reduction in
the emergency planning function
commensurate with the ongoing and
anticipated reduction in radiological source
term at the HB site. These changes are a
revised E-Plan organization, the replacement
of a dedicated on-call emergency response
team with advisory personnel on an asneeded basis, the elimination of the initiating
events and EALs for HBPP Unit 3, and a
revision to the EAL information for the HB
ISFSI. There are no longer credible events
that would result in doses to the public
beyond the owner controlled area boundary
that would exceed the EPA PAGs. HBPP was
shutdown in 1976 and was not restarted. All
spent fuel and GTCC waste has been
transferred to the ISFSI. Margin of safety is
related to the ability of the fission product
barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system, and primary containment) to perform
their design functions during and following
postulated accidents. There are no longer
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49109
credible events that would result in doses to
the public beyond the owner controlled area
boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs.
Emergency Planning Zones beyond the
owner controlled area and the associated
protective actions are no longer required. No
headquarters personnel, personnel involved
in offsite dose projections, or personnel with
special qualifications are required to augment
the HB Site Emergency Response
Organization. The proposed changes involve
a revision to the HB Site E-Plan only and do
not affect the fission product barrier design
or capability of the ISFSI.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer K. Post,
Law Department, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, 77 Beale Street,
B30A, San Francisco, CA.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: March
27, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14086A426.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise various technical specification
(TS) surveillance requirements (SRs)
associated with the Diablo Canyon
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, emergency
Diesel Generators (DGs). The proposed
changes reflect the results of a revised
load study analysis, as well as a revision
to the DG 30-minute load rating. These
changes were submitted to address
multiple issues identified by NRC and
licensee investigations, and are
intended to correct various nonconservative TS values associated with
DG testing.
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 changes revise the
acceptance criteria to be applied to existing
TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs.
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49110
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
The performing of a surveillance test is not
an accident initiator and does not increase
the probability of an accident occurring. The
proposed new surveillance acceptance
criteria will continue to assure that the DGs
are capable of carrying the peak electrical
loading assumed in the various existing
safety analyses, which take credit for the
operation of the DGs. The DG loads during
the proposed surveillances are increased;
however, they remain within vendor
specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the
acceptance criteria to be applied to existing
TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs. The
proposed changes do not involve installation
of new equipment or modification of existing
equipment, so no new equipment failure
modes are introduced. The proposed revision
to the DG surveillance test acceptance criteria
is not a change to the way that the equipment
or facility is operated and no new accident
initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the
acceptance criteria to be applied to existing
TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs. The
conduct of performance tests on safety
related plant equipment is a means of
assuring that the equipment is capable of
maintaining the margin of safety established
in the safety analyses for the facility. These
changes do not significantly reduce the safety
margin because the proposed SRs comply
with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.108, R1
[Revision 1, ‘‘Periodic Testing of Diesel
Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric
Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants,’’
August 1977; available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML12216A011] and Safety
Guide 9 [‘‘Selection of Diesel Generator Set
Capacity for Standby Power Supplies’’]
(March 1971) [available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML12305A251], or an
exception has been requested. The changes
are consistent in comparison to RG 1.9, R3
[Revision 3, ‘‘Selection, Design,
Qualification, and Testing of Emergency
Diesel Generator Units Used as Class 1E
Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear
Power Plants,’’ July 1993; available under
ADAMS Accession No. ML003739929]. The
proposed DG test load values, which include
the requested exception to RG 1.108, R1, are
not a reduction in margin because the values
are bounded by the DG manufacturer’s
ratings. With the proposed changes in the DG
TS surveillance test acceptance criteria, the
DG will continue to be tested in a manner
that assures it will perform as assumed in the
existing safety analyses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post,
Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California
94120.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R.
Oesterle.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation,
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50–
321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January
16, 2014, as supplemented July 22,
2014. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML14016A202 and ML14203A160.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
modify Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.5, Control Room Air Conditioning
(AC) System, to provide new Required
Actions (RAs) for one, two, or three
main control room (MCR) AC
subsystems inoperable, and make other
required corresponding changes.
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 provided below:
SNC has evaluated whether or not a
significant hazards consideration is involved
with the proposed generic change by
focusing on the three standards set forth in
10 CFR 50.92, ‘‘Issuance of amendment,’’ as
discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows 7 days to
restore an inoperable Main Control Room Air
Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two
subsystems are inoperable and allows 72
hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC
subsystem when three subsystems are
inoperable, provided MCR temperature is
verified every four hours to be less than 90°F
[degrees Fahrenheit]. The new Required
Action Completion Times are revised to be
dependent upon the MCR temperature,
instead of being dependent upon the outside
air temperature. The option to operate
indefinitely with one MCR AC subsystem
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
inoperable provided the outside area
temperature is less than 65°F is being
deleted.
In the event that new Conditions A, B, or
Care not met during movement of irradiated
fuel assemblies in the secondary
containment, during CORE ALTERATIONS,
or during OPDRVs [operations with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel],
Conditions E and F are modified and added,
respectively, to state Required Actions and
Completion Times. These Required Actions
include immediate suspension of the current
activity as necessary. As a result of these
changes, current Conditions F and G are no
longer necessary and are deleted.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
The design basis equipment temperature
limit of the control room equipment is not
affected. Future changes to the Bases or
licensee controlled document will be
evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10
CFR 50.59, ‘‘Changes, test and experiments’’,
to ensure that such changes do not result in
more than a minimal increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect
the ability of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended
safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed changes do
not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated. Further, the
proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that
may be released, nor significantly increase
individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows 7 days to
restore an inoperable Main Control Room Air
Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two
subsystems are inoperable and allows 72
hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC
subsystem when three subsystems are
inoperable, provided MCR temperature is
verified every four hours to be less than 90°F.
The new Required Action Completion Times
are revised to be dependent upon the MCR
temperature, instead of being dependent
upon the outside air temperature. The option
to operate indefinitely with one MCR AC
subsystem inoperable provided the outside
area temperature is less than 65°F is being
deleted.
In the event that new Conditions A, B, or
C are not met during movement of irradiated
fuel assemblies in the secondary
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
containment, during CORE ALTERATIONS,
or during OPDRVs, Conditions E and F are
modified and added, respectively, to state
Required Actions and Completion Times.
These Required Actions include immediate
suspension of the current activity as
necessary. As a result of these changes,
current Conditions F and G are no longer
necessary and are deleted.
The changes do not involve a physical
altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different
type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in methods governing normal plant
operation. The requirements in the TS
continue to require maintaining the control
room temperature within the design limits.
Therefore, the changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows 7 days to
restore an inoperable Main Control Room Air
Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two
subsystems are inoperable and allows 72
hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC
subsystem when three subsystems are
inoperable, provided MCR temperature is
verified every four hours to be less than 90°F.
The new Required Action Completion Times
are revised to be dependent upon the MCR
temperature, instead of being dependent
upon the outside air temperature. The option
to operate indefinitely with one MCR AC
subsystem inoperable provided the outside
area temperature is less than 65°F is being
deleted.
In the event that new Conditions A, B, or
C are not met during movement of irradiated
fuel assemblies in the secondary
containment, during CORE ALTERATIONS,
or during OPDRVs, Conditions E and F are
modified and added, respectively, to state
Required Actions and Completion Times.
These Required Actions include immediate
suspension of the current activity as
necessary. As a result of these changes,
current Conditions F and G are no longer
necessary and are deleted.
Instituting the proposed changes will
continue to maintain the control room
temperature within design limits. Should it
appear that control room temperature may
exceed the design basis 105°F equipment
limit based on the control room temperature
reaching 90°F in Modes 1, 2, or 3, the plant
will be placed in the Cold Shutdown Mode
(Mode 4). If the control room heatup is rapid,
then the plant with be required to be placed
in Mode 3 and in Mode 4 with a Completion
Time that is similar to the current
requirements. If the control room heatup is
relatively slow (and the design basis
equipment temperature is therefore less
likely to be reached), longer time will be
allowed to place the plant in Mode 3 and in
Mode 4 (if necessary). Changes to the Bases
or license controlled document are
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
This approach provides an effective level of
regulatory control and ensures that the
control room temperature will be maintained
within design limits.
The proposed changes maintain sufficient
controls to preserve the current margins of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that
the proposed change presents no significant
hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant
hazards consideration’’ is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake,
Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and
Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.
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,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49111
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
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:
December 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition
for Operation 3.5.1 to delete a note that
is not conservative. The note is being
deleted because plant operation, in
accordance with the note, could result
in potential damage to the residual heat
removal system.
Date of issuance: July 28, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented within 60
days.
Amendments Nos.: 292 and 295. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14163A589;
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 Facility
Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12245).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: May 28,
2013, as supplemented by letters dated
July 31, 2013, January 29, 2014, and
March 26, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Seabrook
Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, the amendment modified
the TSs by relocating specific
surveillance frequencies to a licenseecontrolled program with
implementation of Nuclear Energy
Institute 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed
Technical Specification Initiative 5B,
Risk-Informed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies.’’ The changes
are consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical
Specifications (STS) change TSTF–425,
‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control—Risk Informed
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
49112
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Technical Specifications Task Force
(RITSTF) Initiative 5b,’’ Revision 3
(ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642).
The Federal Register notice published
on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996),
announced the availability of this TS
improvement.
Date of issuance: July 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 141. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML13212A069;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
86: The amendment revised the License
and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51227). The supplemental letters dated
July 31, 2013, January 29, 2014, and
March 26, 2014, 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 July 24, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope
Creek), Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: July 30,
2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TS) to delete the
operability and surveillance
requirements (SRs) for the reactor
coolant system safety/relief valve (SRV)
position instrumentation from the Hope
Creek TS. The operability and SRs for
the SRV position instrumentation will
be relocated by the licensee into the
Hope Creek Technical Requirements
Manual (TRM). The Hope Creek TRM is
controlled in a manner consistent with
procedures described in the Hope Creek
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report,
and under the provisions of 10 CFR
50.59. Future changes to the operability
and SRs for the SRV position
instrumentation will be performed
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
Date of issuance: July 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 195. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Aug 18, 2014
Jkt 232001
Accession No. ML14108A312;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–57: The amendment revised
the License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18334).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Docket
Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units
2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2013, as supplemented by
the letter dated March 26, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments authorize a revision to the
VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Emergency Plan
to facilitate compliance with the Final
Rule for Emergency Planning and
Preparedness published on November
23, 2011.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—13, and
Unit 3—13. A publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML14133A377 and ML14133A381;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
93 and NPF–94: Amendments revised
the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Emergency
Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR
9490). The supplement dated March 26,
2014, 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 June 23, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
letters dated September 30, 2013, and
May 16, 2014.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments add three additional
AREVA NP analysis methodologies to
the list of approved methods to be used
in determining core operating limits in
the Core Operating Limits Report. In
addition, the amendments implement a
change to the Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratio value for BFN Unit
2. The changes support a planned
transition to AREVA ATRIUM 10XM
(XM) fuel design. TVA intends to
transition Unit 2 to XM design starting
with Cycle 19 (spring 2015), Unit 3 in
spring 2016, followed by Unit 1 in fall
of 2016.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2014.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be
implemented during the refueling
outages of Unit 1 in fall of 2016, Unit
2 in spring 2015, Unit 3 in spring 2016.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—285, Unit
2—311, and Unit 3—270. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14113A286;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68:
Amendments revised the Facility
Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 13, 2013 (78 FR
49302). The supplemental letters dated
September 30, 2013, and May 16, 2014,
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 July 31, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day
of August 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–19386 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Date of application for amendments:
February 28, 2013, as supplemented by
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\19AUN1.SGM
19AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49104-49112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19386]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0189]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from July 24, 2014 to August 6, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 5, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 18, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 20, 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-2014-0189. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear
[[Page 49105]]
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0189 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
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-2014-0189.
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. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
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-2014-0189 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly
disclosed 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, and 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 into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the 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 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/
[[Page 49106]]
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 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,
[[Page 49107]]
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner
are responsible for serving the document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of
deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service.
A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment
application, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on obtaining information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: October 2, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 19, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML13284A063 and ML14188B450, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
incorporates Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
493-A, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for
LSSS [limiting safety system settings] Functions,'' Option A. The
availability of this Technical Specification (TS) improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26294). The
proposed amendment would revise the TSs by adding requirements to
assess channel performance during testing that verifies instrument
channel setting values established by plant-specific setpoint
methodologies to all the functions identified in TSTF-493, Revision 4,
Appendix A. Notice of this action was previously published in the
Federal Register on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3415). The renoticing of
this action is provided to include a supplement to the licensee's
application dated October 2, 2013, which is dated June 19, 2014. This
renotice replaces and supersedes the Federal Register notice of January
21, 2014, in its entirety. The supplement dated June 19, 2014, added TS
Table 3.3.6.2-1 Function 1 to the list of functions included in the
adoption of TSTF-493, Revision 4, which is not included in Appendix A
of TSTF-493.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds test requirements to TS instrument
Functions related to those variables that have a significant safety
function to ensure that instruments will function as required to
initiate protective systems or actuate mitigating systems at the
point assumed in the applicable safety analysis. Surveillance tests
are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
TS for which surveillance Notes are added are still required to be
operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance
requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function
assumed in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed. The
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but
ensures that the instruments perform as assumed in the accident
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds test requirements that will assure that
TS instrumentation AVs [allowable values] (1) will be limiting
settings for assessing instrument channel operability and (2) will
be conservatively determined so that evaluation of instrument
performance history and the ALT [as-left tolerance] requirements of
the calibration procedures will not have an adverse effect on
equipment operability. The testing methods and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components specified in applicable
codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis
including the updated FSAR [final safety analysis report]. There is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the
plant licensing basis because no change is made to the accident
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in
[[Page 49108]]
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14097A106.
Description of amendment request: The Northern States Power Company
proposes to revise MNGP technical specification (TS) 3.5.1, ``ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling]--Operating.'' Specifically, NSPM proposes to
remove TS 3.5.1, Condition F, which currently provides a 72-hour
Completion Time to restore one Core Spray subsystem to Operable status
when both Core Spray subsystems are inoperable.
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 provided below.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Core Spray subsystems are designed to inject/spray the core
after any size break up to and including a design basis Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA). The proposed change to revise the
Completion Time does not change the conditions, operating
configurations or the minimum amount of operating equipment assumed
in the safety analysis for accident mitigation. No change is
proposed to the manner in which the Core Spray System provides plant
protection or which would create new modes of plant operation.
The proposed change will not affect the probability of any event
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of, or
an increase in the number of challenges imposed on, safety-related
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident
mitigation performance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There is no hardware change nor is there a change in the method
by which any plant systems perform a safety function. This request
does not affect the normal method of plant operation.
The proposed change does not introduce new equipment which could
create a new or different kind of accident. No new external threats,
release pathways, or equipment failure modes are created. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this request.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The Core Spray subsystems are capable of providing water and
removing heat loads to satisfy the Updated Safety Analysis Report
requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown.
There will be no change to the manner in which the safety limits
or limiting safety system settings are determined, nor is there a
change to those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment
of protection functions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14125A239.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change Technical Specification (TS) section 3.2, Table 3-5, for Fort
Calhoun Station, Unit 1, to add a new surveillance requirement similar
to standard TS to verify the correct position of the valves required to
restrict flow in the high-pressure safety injection system.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 3.2 Table 3-
5 would add a new surveillance requirement to verify the position of
valves required to restrict flow in the high pressure safety
injection system to ensure adequate flow is maintained following a
design basis accident.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
because: (1) The proposed amendment does not represent a change to
the system design, (2) the proposed amendment does not alter,
degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in any accident
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) from being performed, (3) the
proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions previously made in
evaluating radiological consequences, and [4)] the proposed
amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission product
barrier. No other safety related equipment is affected by the
proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a surveillance requirement to verify
the position of valves. The proposed change does not alter the
physical design, safety limits, or safety analysis assumptions
associated with the operation of the plant. Hence, the proposed
change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it
reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure
or system in the performance of their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to add a new surveillance requirement does
not alter the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety
system settings are determined. The safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by this proposed change. Further, the
proposed change does not change the design function of any equipment
assumed to operate in the event of an accident. The change only adds
a requirement to periodically verify the position of valves.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
[[Page 49109]]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power
Plant Unit 3, and Docket No. 72-027, Humboldt Bay Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation, Humboldt County, California
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14182A476.
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request
proposes changes to the Humboldt Bay (HB) site Emergency Plan (E-Plan).
The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning function
commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in radiological
source term at the Humboldt Bay site. These changes are a revised E-
Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call emergency
response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed basis, the
elimination of the initiating events and emergency action levels for
Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3, and a revision to the emergency
action level (EAL) information for the HB Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation (ISFSI).
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning
function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in
radiological source term at the HB site. These changes are a revised
E-Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call
emergency response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed
basis, the elimination of the initiating events and emergency action
levels for Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3, and a revision to
the emergency action level information for the HB ISFSI. There are
no longer credible events that would result in doses to the public
beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guidelines
(PAGs). HBPP was shutdown in 1976 and was not restarted. All spent
fuel and Greater Than Class C (GTCC) waste has been transferred to
the ISFSI. Emergency Planning Zones beyond the owner controlled area
and the associated protective actions are no longer required. No
headquarters personnel, personnel involved in off-site dose
projections, or personnel with special qualifications are required
to augment the HB Emergency Response Organization. The credible
events for the ISFSI remain unchanged. The indications of damage to
a loaded cask confinement boundary have been revised to be twice the
design basis dose rate as described in Section 7.3.2.1 of the ISFSI
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (0.3 mrem/hr). This change is
consistent with industry practices previously approved by the NRC
for other ISFSIs to be able to distinguish that a degraded condition
exists.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning
function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in
radiological source term at the HB site. These changes are a revised
E-Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call
emergency response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed
basis, the elimination of the initiating events and EALs for HBPP,
Unit 3, and a revision to the EAL information for the HB ISFSI.
There are no longer credible events that would result in doses to
the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would
exceed the EPA PAGs. HBPP was shutdown in 1976 and was not
restarted. All spent fuel and GTCC waste has been transferred to the
ISFSI. Emergency Planning Zones beyond the owner controlled area and
the associated protective actions are no longer required. No
headquarters personnel, personnel involved in off-site dose
projections, or personnel with special qualifications are required
to augment the HB Site Emergency Response Organization. The proposed
changes involve a revision to the HP Site E-Plan only, and do not
involve any physical changes to the HB Site that would create the
possibility of a new or different accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are a reduction in the emergency planning
function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in
radiological source term at the HB site. These changes are a revised
E-Plan organization, the replacement of a dedicated on-call
emergency response team with advisory personnel on an as-needed
basis, the elimination of the initiating events and EALs for HBPP
Unit 3, and a revision to the EAL information for the HB ISFSI.
There are no longer credible events that would result in doses to
the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would
exceed the EPA PAGs. HBPP was shutdown in 1976 and was not
restarted. All spent fuel and GTCC waste has been transferred to the
ISFSI. Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary
containment) to perform their design functions during and following
postulated accidents. There are no longer credible events that would
result in doses to the public beyond the owner controlled area
boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs. Emergency Planning Zones
beyond the owner controlled area and the associated protective
actions are no longer required. No headquarters personnel, personnel
involved in offsite dose projections, or personnel with special
qualifications are required to augment the HB Site Emergency
Response Organization. The proposed changes involve a revision to
the HB Site E-Plan only and do not affect the fission product
barrier design or capability of the ISFSI.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer K. Post, Law Department, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, B30A, San Francisco, CA.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14086A426.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise various technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements
(SRs) associated with the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,
emergency Diesel Generators (DGs). The proposed changes reflect the
results of a revised load study analysis, as well as a revision to the
DG 30-minute load rating. These changes were submitted to address
multiple issues identified by NRC and licensee investigations, and are
intended to correct various non-conservative TS values associated with
DG testing.
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 changes revise the acceptance criteria to be
applied to existing TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs.
[[Page 49110]]
The performing of a surveillance test is not an accident
initiator and does not increase the probability of an accident
occurring. The proposed new surveillance acceptance criteria will
continue to assure that the DGs are capable of carrying the peak
electrical loading assumed in the various existing safety analyses,
which take credit for the operation of the DGs. The DG loads during
the proposed surveillances are increased; however, they remain
within vendor specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the acceptance criteria to be
applied to existing TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs. The
proposed changes do not involve installation of new equipment or
modification of existing equipment, so no new equipment failure
modes are introduced. The proposed revision to the DG surveillance
test acceptance criteria is not a change to the way that the
equipment or facility is operated and no new accident initiators are
created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the acceptance criteria to be
applied to existing TS surveillance tests of the facility DGs. The
conduct of performance tests on safety related plant equipment is a
means of assuring that the equipment is capable of maintaining the
margin of safety established in the safety analyses for the
facility. These changes do not significantly reduce the safety
margin because the proposed SRs comply with RG [Regulatory Guide]
1.108, R1 [Revision 1, ``Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units
Used as Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants,''
August 1977; available under ADAMS Accession No. ML12216A011] and
Safety Guide 9 [``Selection of Diesel Generator Set Capacity for
Standby Power Supplies''] (March 1971) [available under ADAMS
Accession No. ML12305A251], or an exception has been requested. The
changes are consistent in comparison to RG 1.9, R3 [Revision 3,
``Selection, Design, Qualification, and Testing of Emergency Diesel
Generator Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Systems at
Nuclear Power Plants,'' July 1993; available under ADAMS Accession
No. ML003739929]. The proposed DG test load values, which include
the requested exception to RG 1.108, R1, are not a reduction in
margin because the values are bounded by the DG manufacturer's
ratings. With the proposed changes in the DG TS surveillance test
acceptance criteria, the DG will continue to be tested in a manner
that assures it will perform as assumed in the existing safety
analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 16, 2014, as supplemented July
22, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML14016A202 and ML14203A160.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, Control Room Air
Conditioning (AC) System, to provide new Required Actions (RAs) for
one, two, or three main control room (MCR) AC subsystems inoperable,
and make other required corresponding changes.
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 provided below:
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards
consideration is involved with the proposed generic change by
focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92,
``Issuance of amendment,'' as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows 7 days to restore an inoperable Main
Control Room Air Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two subsystems
are inoperable and allows 72 hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC
subsystem when three subsystems are inoperable, provided MCR
temperature is verified every four hours to be less than 90[deg]F
[degrees Fahrenheit]. The new Required Action Completion Times are
revised to be dependent upon the MCR temperature, instead of being
dependent upon the outside air temperature. The option to operate
indefinitely with one MCR AC subsystem inoperable provided the
outside area temperature is less than 65[deg]F is being deleted.
In the event that new Conditions A, B, or Care not met during
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies in the secondary containment,
during CORE ALTERATIONS, or during OPDRVs [operations with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel], Conditions E and F are
modified and added, respectively, to state Required Actions and
Completion Times. These Required Actions include immediate
suspension of the current activity as necessary. As a result of
these changes, current Conditions F and G are no longer necessary
and are deleted.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The design basis equipment temperature limit of the control room
equipment is not affected. Future changes to the Bases or licensee
controlled document will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, test and experiments'', to ensure that
such changes do not result in more than a minimal increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows 7 days to restore an inoperable Main
Control Room Air Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two subsystems
are inoperable and allows 72 hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC
subsystem when three subsystems are inoperable, provided MCR
temperature is verified every four hours to be less than 90[deg]F.
The new Required Action Completion Times are revised to be dependent
upon the MCR temperature, instead of being dependent upon the
outside air temperature. The option to operate indefinitely with one
MCR AC subsystem inoperable provided the outside area temperature is
less than 65[deg]F is being deleted.
In the event that new Conditions A, B, or C are not met during
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies in the secondary
[[Page 49111]]
containment, during CORE ALTERATIONS, or during OPDRVs, Conditions E
and F are modified and added, respectively, to state Required
Actions and Completion Times. These Required Actions include
immediate suspension of the current activity as necessary. As a
result of these changes, current Conditions F and G are no longer
necessary and are deleted.
The changes do not involve a physical altering of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in methods governing normal plant operation. The requirements
in the TS continue to require maintaining the control room
temperature within the design limits.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows 7 days to restore an inoperable Main
Control Room Air Conditioning (MCR AC) subsystem when two subsystems
are inoperable and allows 72 hours to restore an inoperable MCR AC
subsystem when three subsystems are inoperable, provided MCR
temperature is verified every four hours to be less than 90[deg]F.
The new Required Action Completion Times are revised to be dependent
upon the MCR temperature, instead of being dependent upon the
outside air temperature. The option to operate indefinitely with one
MCR AC subsystem inoperable provided the outside area temperature is
less than 65[deg]F is being deleted.
In the event that new Conditions A, B, or C are not met during
movement of irradiated fuel assemblies in the secondary containment,
during CORE ALTERATIONS, or during OPDRVs, Conditions E and F are
modified and added, respectively, to state Required Actions and
Completion Times. These Required Actions include immediate
suspension of the current activity as necessary. As a result of
these changes, current Conditions F and G are no longer necessary
and are deleted.
Instituting the proposed changes will continue to maintain the
control room temperature within design limits. Should it appear that
control room temperature may exceed the design basis 105[deg]F
equipment limit based on the control room temperature reaching
90[deg]F in Modes 1, 2, or 3, the plant will be placed in the Cold
Shutdown Mode (Mode 4). If the control room heatup is rapid, then
the plant with be required to be placed in Mode 3 and in Mode 4 with
a Completion Time that is similar to the current requirements. If
the control room heatup is relatively slow (and the design basis
equipment temperature is therefore less likely to be reached),
longer time will be allowed to place the plant in Mode 3 and in Mode
4 (if necessary). Changes to the Bases or license controlled
document are performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and
ensures that the control room temperature will be maintained within
design limits.
The proposed changes maintain sufficient controls to preserve
the current margins of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed change
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw,
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.
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, 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
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
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: December 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.5.1 to delete a
note that is not conservative. The note is being deleted because plant
operation, in accordance with the note, could result in potential
damage to the residual heat removal system.
Date of issuance: July 28, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 292 and 295. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14163A589; 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 Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR
12245).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: May 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated July 31, 2013, January 29, 2014, and March 26, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Seabrook
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment modified
the TSs by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute 04-
10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5B, Risk-
Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' The changes
are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) change TSTF-425,
``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed
[[Page 49112]]
Technical Specifications Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b,'' Revision
3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal Register notice
published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the availability of
this TS improvement.
Date of issuance: July 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 141. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML13212A069; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51227). The supplemental letters dated July 31, 2013, January 29, 2014,
and March 26, 2014, 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 July 24, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station
(Hope Creek), Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: July 30, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TS) to delete the operability and surveillance
requirements (SRs) for the reactor coolant system safety/relief valve
(SRV) position instrumentation from the Hope Creek TS. The operability
and SRs for the SRV position instrumentation will be relocated by the
licensee into the Hope Creek Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). The
Hope Creek TRM is controlled in a manner consistent with procedures
described in the Hope Creek Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, and
under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Future changes to the operability
and SRs for the SRV position instrumentation will be performed pursuant
to 10 CFR 50.59.
Date of issuance: July 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 195. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14108A312; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment
revised the License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR
18334).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2013, as supplemented by
the letter dated March 26, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorize a
revision to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Emergency Plan to facilitate
compliance with the Final Rule for Emergency Planning and Preparedness
published on November 23, 2011.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2--13, and Unit 3--13. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14133A377 and ML14133A381;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments
revised the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79
FR 9490). The supplement dated March 26, 2014, 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 June 23, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
Date of application for amendments: February 28, 2013, as
supplemented by letters dated September 30, 2013, and May 16, 2014.
Description of amendment request: The amendments add three
additional AREVA NP analysis methodologies to the list of approved
methods to be used in determining core operating limits in the Core
Operating Limits Report. In addition, the amendments implement a change
to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio value for BFN Unit 2.
The changes support a planned transition to AREVA ATRIUM 10XM (XM) fuel
design. TVA intends to transition Unit 2 to XM design starting with
Cycle 19 (spring 2015), Unit 3 in spring 2016, followed by Unit 1 in
fall of 2016.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2014.
Effective date: Date of issuance, to be implemented during the
refueling outages of Unit 1 in fall of 2016, Unit 2 in spring 2015,
Unit 3 in spring 2016.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--285, Unit 2--311, and Unit 3--270. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14113A286;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 13, 2013 (78 FR
49302). The supplemental letters dated September 30, 2013, and May 16,
2014, 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 July 31, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-19386 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P