Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 61658-61668 [2014-24355]
Download as PDF
61658
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
The following certifications have been
issued. The requirements of Section
222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and
Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act
have been met.
85,423, Abbott Vascular, Redwood City,
California. July 14, 2013.
85,502, The ESAB Group, Inc., Florence,
South Carolina. August 22, 2013.
85,504, National Instruments
Corporation, Austin, Texas. August
25, 2013.
85,512, Alsip Acquisition LLC., D.B.A.
Future Mark Alsip, Alsip, Illinois.
August 28, 2013.
85,519, New England Paper Tube Co.,
Inc., Pawtucket, Rhode Island,
September 2, 2013.
Negative Determinations for Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In the following cases, it has been
determined that the requirements of
246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for
the reasons specified.
None.
Negative Determinations for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In the following cases, the
investigation revealed that the eligibility
criteria for worker adjustment assistance
have not been met for the reasons
specified.
Because the workers of the firm are
not eligible to apply for TAA, the
workers cannot be certified eligible for
ATAA.
The workers’ firm does not produce
an article as required for certification
under Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974.
85,427, MoneyGram Payment Systems,
Inc., Lakewood, Colorado.
85,436, PST, Inc., D/B/A Business
Performance Services, Cypress,
California.
85,451, Fifth Third Mortgage Company,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Determinations Terminating
Investigations of Petitions for Worker
Adjustment Assistance
After notice of the petitions was
published in the Federal Register and
on the Department’s Web site, as
required by Section 221 of the Act (19
U.S.C. 2271), the Department initiated
investigations of these petitions.
The following determinations
terminating investigations were issued
because the petitioner has requested
that the petition be withdrawn.
85,531, Regal Beloit, Springfield,
Missouri.
85,532, Pacific Interpreters, Portland,
Oregon.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
The following determinations
terminating investigations were issued
because the petitioning groups of
workers are covered by active
certifications. Consequently, further
investigation in these cases would serve
no purpose since the petitioning group
of workers cannot be covered by more
than one certification at a time.
85,457, LSI Corporation, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
85,520, Swisher International, Inc.,
Jacksonville, Florida.
I hereby certify that the
aforementioned determinations were
issued during the period of September
15, 2014 through September 19, 2014.
These determinations are available on
the Department’s Web site
www.tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm
under the searchable listing of
determinations or by calling the Office
of Trade Adjustment Assistance toll free
at 888–365–6822.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
September 2014.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–24274 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0224]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and
grants the Commission the authority to
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 September
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18, 2014 to October 1, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on
September 30, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
November 13, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 15,
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–2014–0224. 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
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–
0224 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–2014–0224.
• 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.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
• 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–
0224 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as entering
the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the NRC’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Room
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC’s regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC’s Web site at https://www.nrc.
gov/reading-rm/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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61659
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
61660
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 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/gettingstarted.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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with the NRC’s
guidance available on the NRC’s public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. A filing is
considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a toll-free call at 1–866–672–7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is
available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://ehd1.
nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, or the
presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Florida Power and Light Company,
Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 8,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14205A278.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would modify the
Technical Specifications by revising or
adding surveillance requirements (SRs)
to verify that the system locations
susceptible to gas accumulation are
sufficiently filled with water and to
provide allowances that permit
performance of the verification. The
licensee proposed the changes to
address NRC Generic Letter 2008–01,
‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in
Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray
Systems’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML072910759), as described in Revision
2 of Technical Specification Task Force523, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing
Gas Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13053A075).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented as
follows:
1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a
Significant Increase in the Probability or
Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the Emergency
Core Cooling Systems (ECCS), the Residual
Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the
Containment Spray (CS) System are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. Gas
accumulation in the subject systems is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs
ensure that the subject systems continue to
be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due
to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of 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 revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR System, and the CS System are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident.
The proposed change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis and
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 accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a
Significant Reduction in the Margin of
Safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, RHR
System, and CS System are not rendered
inoperable due to accumulated gas and to
provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to
manage gas accumulation in order to ensure
that the subject systems are capable of
performing their assumed safety functions.
The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the
assumptions of the safety analysis are
protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety
margins or the reliability of the equipment
assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore,
there are no changes being made to any safety
analysis assumptions, safety limits, or
limiting safety system settings that would
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff 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 S.
Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61661
Florida Power & Light Company, 700
Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408–0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M.
Regner.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50–395,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS), Unit 1, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August
27, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14245A408.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment requests
approval for a change to the VCSNS
licensing basis to incorporate a
supplemental analysis to the steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR) accident.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change, to adopt a new
analytical method to evaluate the effects of a
SGTR, does not affect any accident initiators
or precursors since there is no physical
change to plant systems, structures and
components [SSCs] or manner in which they
are operated during normal operation. As
such, the proposed change does not increase
the probability of an accident.
The ability of operators to mitigate the
consequences of an accident is also not
diminished as there is no impact on the
design of mitigating plant systems that would
reduce their design capability or increase
their failure probability during normal
operation or accident conditions.
The present methodology for calculating
mass transfer (i.e., from the reactor coolant
system to the secondary side via the failed
SG [steam generator] tube) for input to the
radiological consequences of a postulated
SGTR is conservative when compared with
results from the new methodology. As such,
the existing licensing basis methodology for
calculating mass transfer will be retained.
The calculated doses for the SGTR event for
use in the FSAR [final safety analysis report]
will be updated to reflect the results of the
updated calculations with the reported doses
to include 5 percent margin. Although
slightly higher than the current analyses of
record, the updated doses are well within
regulatory limits and the increases are not
more than minimal. Consistent with VCSNS’s
current licensing basis, the dose calculations
conform to the guidance presented in 10 CFR
50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard Review Plan
[(SRP)] Section 15.0.1.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
61662
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The use of this previously approved
methodology (WCAP–10698–P–A) more
accurately calculates the plant response to an
SGTR event. The improved accuracy of the
new methodology provides valuable
information related to operator actions and
associated timing. Such accurate transient
response information enables enhancements
to be made to the emergency operating
procedures (EOPs) and allows future changes
to be more effectively assessed for impact.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
consequences or probability of occurrence of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact the
design of affected plant systems, involve a
physical alteration to the systems, or change
to the way in which systems are currently
operated, such that previously unanalyzed
SGTRs would now occur. Since the design
function and mode of operation of SSCs in
the facility prior to a postulated accident are
unchanged, the change to adopt a new
analytical method to evaluate the effects of a
tube rupture does not introduce any new
malfunctions. Its use is beneficial in that it
allows for a more accurate prediction of the
plant response following a postulated SGTR
to determine the time available for operator
actions to prevent overfilling the affected SG.
Thus, the proposed change does not affect or
create new accident initiators or precursors
or create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The approval of the proposed change will
not result in any modifications to affected
plant systems that would reduce their design
capabilities during normal operating and
accident conditions. By using the WCAP–
10698–P–A methodology, a more accurate
SGTR response is calculated. The improved
understanding of the transient response
enables enhancements to the EOPs, which
provide further assurance the SSCs required
for accident mitigation are available and that
required actions can be accomplished in a
time frame to prevent overfill of a ruptured
SG.
The SGTR dose consequences to be
reported in the FSAR are well within the
acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR
50.67, RG 1.183, and SRP 15.0.1. Given this,
there is no 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: J. Hagood
Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric &
Gas Company, Post Office Box 764,
Columbia, South Carolina 29218.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Docket Nos.: 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August
22, 2014, and revised by the letter dated
September 23, 2014. Publicly-available
versions are available in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14234A423 and
ML14266A656, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The license amendment request consists
of changes to the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of
departures from the incorporated plantspecific Design Control Document
(DCD) Tier 2 information and involves
changes to Tier 2* and Tier 1
information, with corresponding
changes associated with combined
license (COL) Appendix C information.
The proposed changes include:
(a) Installation of an additional nonsafety-related battery;
(b) Revision to the annex building
internal configuration by converting a
shift turnover room to a battery room,
adding an additional battery equipment
room, and moving a fire area wall;
(c) Increase in the height of a room in
the annex building; and
(d) Increase in thicknesses of certain
floor of the annex building.
In addition, the proposed changes
also include reconfiguring existing
rooms and related room, wall, and
access path changes.
Because this proposed change
requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the
licensee also requested an exemption
from the requirements of the Generic
DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1).
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 additions of a new
nonsafety-related battery, battery room and
battery equipment room, the room height
increase, the floor thickness changes, the
relocation of a non-structural internal wall,
and the associated wall, room and corridor
changes within the annex building do not
adversely affect the fire loading analysis
durations of the affected fire zones and areas
(i.e., the calculated fire durations remain less
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
than their design values). Thus, the fire loads
analysis is not adversely affected (i.e.,
analysis results remain acceptable). The safe
shutdown fire analysis is not affected. The
proposed changes to the structural
configuration, including anticipated
equipment loading, room height, and floor
thickness are accounted for in the updated
structural configuration model that was used
to analyze the Annex Building for safe
shutdown earthquake (SSE) and other design
loads and load combinations, thus the
structural analysis is not adversely affected.
The structural analysis description and
results in the UFSAR are unchanged. The
relocated internal Annex Building wall is
non-structural, thus this change does not
affect the structural analyses for the Annex
Building. The proposed changes do not
involve any accident initiating event or
component failure, thus the probabilities of
the accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The rooms affected by the proposed
changes do not contain or interface with
safety-related equipment, thus the proposed
changes would not affect any safety-related
equipment or accident mitigating function.
The radioactive material source terms and
release paths used in the safety analyses are
unchanged, thus the radiological releases in
the accident analyses are not affected.
With the conversion of an annex building
room to a battery room, the building volume
serviced by nuclear island nonradioactive
ventilation system decreases by approximate
five percent. This reduced volume is used in
the post-accident main control room dose
portion of the UFSAR LOCA [loss-of-coolant
accident] radiological analysis. However, the
volume decrease is not sufficient to change
the calculated main control room dose
reported in the UFSAR, and control room
habitability is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed additions of a new
nonsafety-related battery, battery room and
battery equipment room, the room height
increase, the floor thickness changes, the
relocation of a non-structural internal wall,
and their associated wall, room and corridor
changes do not change fire barrier
performance, and the fire loading analyses
results remain acceptable. The room height
and floor thickness changes are consistent
with the annex building configuration used
in the building’s structural analysis. The
relocated internal wall is non-structural, thus
the structural analyses for the annex building
are not affected. The affected rooms and
associated equipment do not interface with
components that contain radioactive
material. The affected rooms do not contain
equipment whose failure could initiate an
accident. The proposed changes do not create
a new fault or sequence of events that could
result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed additions of a new
nonsafety-related battery, battery room and
battery equipment room, the room height
increase, the floor thickness changes, the
relocation of a non-structural internal wall,
and their associated wall, room and corridor
changes do not change the fire barrier
performance of the affected fire areas. The
affected rooms do not contain safety-related
equipment, and the safe shutdown fire
analysis is not affected. Because the proposed
change does not alter compliance with the
construction codes to which the annex
building is designed and constructed, the
proposed changes to the structural
configuration, including anticipated
equipment loading, room height, and floor
thickness do not adversely affect the safety
margins associated with the seismic Category
II structural capability of the annex building.
The floor areas and amounts of
combustible material loads in affected fire
zones and areas do not significantly change,
such that their fire duration times remain
within their two-hour design value, thus the
safety margins associated with the fire loads
analysis are not affected.
No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford
Blanton, Blach & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence
Burkhart.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North
Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2,
Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: August
27, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14246A190.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed license amendment
requests changes to the Technical
Specification (TS) to revise TS Figures
3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2, for the North Anna
Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) Heatup Limitations and RCS
Cooldown Limitations, respectively, for
clarification and to be fully
representative of the allowable
operating conditions during RCS startup
and cooldown evolutions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
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 clarification of TS Figures
3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not involve a
physical change to the plant and does not
change the manner in which plant systems or
components are operated or controlled. The
proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, system, and components
(SSCs) to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The P/T [pressure/temperature] curves on TS
Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being
modified and remain valid.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of
an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
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 clarification of TS Figures
3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not involve any
physical alteration of plant equipment;
consequently, no new or different types of
equipment will be installed. The proposed
change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, or configuration of
the facility. The P/T curves on TS Figures
3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified,
and the basic operation of installed plant
systems and components is unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing RCS P/T curves on TS Figures
3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 are not being modified.
The proposed clarification of TS Figures
3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2 does not alter any plant
equipment, does not change the manner in
which the plant is operated or controlled,
and has no impact on any safety analysis
assumptions. The proposed change does not
alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The
proposed change does not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the
analyses or design basis and does not
adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61663
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
III. Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously
published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice
in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County,
Massachusetts
Date of amendment request:
September 11, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14258A179.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification 4.3.4.b to reflect the
removal of the energy absorbing pad
from the spent fuel pool and the
installation of a leveling platform.
Date of publication of individual
notice in Federal Register: September
22, 2014 (79 FR 56608).
Expiration date of individual notice:
October 26, 2014 (public comments);
November 22, 2014 (hearing requests).
IV. 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
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
61664
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270 and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1,
2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
October 24, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 30, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the ONS Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to
clarify the Quality Assurance (QA)
requirements for Standby Shutdown
Facility (SSF) equipment. The proposed
change revises ONS UFSAR Section
3.1.1.1 to clarify that the QA
requirements applied to certain
equipment relied upon to perform the
SSF function that existed prior to the
construction of the SSF, will be
consistent with the original QA
requirements for that equipment.
Date of Issuance: September 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
Amendment Nos.: 387, 389, and 388.
A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14254A246. Documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR
9493). The supplemental letter dated
June 30, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as noticed, and did not
change the staff’s proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 25,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–333, James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County,
New York
Date of amendment request: May 1,
2014, as supplemented by letter dated
August 21, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification 2.0, ‘‘Safety Limits (SLs),’’
by changing the safety limit minimum
critical power ratio for both single and
dual recirculation loop operation.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 307. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14258B189;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–59: The amendment revised
the License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45487).
The supplemental letter dated August
21, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination (NSHC) as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment and final NSHC
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
determination is contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated September 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment:
October 26, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated May 28 and August 28,
2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment deleted Paragraph 2.C.(32)
of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit
1, Facility Operating License, which
currently prohibits operating with
partial feedwater heating for the
purpose of extending the fuel cycle at
rated power conditions.
Date of issuance: September 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 199. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14162A378;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
29: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 12, 2013 (78 FR
9948). The supplemental letters dated
May 28 and August 28, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 25,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334
and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment requests: July 25,
2012, as supplemented by letters dated
June 1, October 21, and November 14,
2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modified Technical
Specification 3.1.3 to allow the
normally required near end-of-life
Moderator Temperature Coefficient
(MTC) measurement to not be
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
performed under certain conditions. If
these conditions are met, the MTC
measurement would be replaced by a
calculated value.
Date of issuance: September 17, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented with
60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 291 and 178. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14245A151;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–66 and NPF–73: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 4, 2012 (77 FR
53929). The supplements dated June 1,
October 21, and November 14, 2013,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC
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 September 17,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC,
Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: August
29, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and
August 21, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Duane Arnold
Energy Center Technical Specifications
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.8.4.1
and 3.8.4.6 by changing the battery
terminal voltage, the battery charger
voltage, and amperage provided in these
SRs to account for the replacement of
the existing 58-cell 125 volts direct
current (VDC) batteries with new 60-cell
125 VDC batteries.
Date of issuance: September 26, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 289. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14259A292;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–49: The amendment revised
the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 24, 2013 (78 FR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
77732). The supplemental letters dated
May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and August
21, 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 September 26,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern California Edison Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362,
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment request: October
21, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014,
and September 15, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised and removed
certain requirements from the Section 5,
‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ portions of
the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Technical
Specifications (TSs) that are no longer
applicable to the units in a permanently
defueled condition. Specifically, the
amendments revised TS Sections 5.1,
‘‘Responsibility,’’ 5.2, ‘‘Organization,’’
and 5.3, ‘‘Facility Staff Qualifications,’’
to reflect new staffing and training
requirements for operating staff.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
Effective date: Upon issuance, to be
implemented within 60 days of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2–227; Unit
3–220. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14183B240; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
10 and NPF–15: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 24, 2013 (78 FR
77733). The supplemental letters dated
June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, and
September 15, 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 amendments is contained in a
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61665
Safety Evaluation dated September 30,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments:
August 20, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated February 24 and June 12,
2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant Emergency Plan by
revising certain Emergency Action Level
thresholds by removing Main Steam
Line radiation monitors RE–13119, RE–
13120, RE–13121, and RE–13122 to
address limitations of these monitors.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 172 and 154. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14170A911;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised
the Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 17, 2013 (78 FR
57184). The supplemental letters dated
on February 24, and June 12, 2014,
provided additional information
clarifying the LAR, did not expand the
scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff’s original proposed no significant
hazards consideration as published in
the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated September 30,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final
Determination of No Significant
Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent
Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the
standards and requirements of the
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
61666
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s rules
and regulations. The Commission has
made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commission’s rules
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I,
which are set forth in the license
amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency
circumstances associated with the date
the amendment was needed, there was
not time for the Commission to publish,
for public comment before issuance, its
usual notice of consideration of
issuance of amendment, proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination, and opportunity for a
hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the
Commission has either issued a Federal
Register notice providing opportunity
for public comment or has used local
media to provide notice to the public in
the area surrounding a licensee’s facility
of the licensee’s application and of the
Commission’s proposed determination
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has provided a
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
available to the public means of
communication for the public to
respond quickly, and in the case of
telephone comments, the comments
have been recorded or transcribed as
appropriate and the licensee has been
informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act
in a timely way would have resulted, for
example, in derating or shutdown of a
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
either resumption of operation or of
increase in power output up to the
plant’s licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
case, the license amendment has been
issued without opportunity for
comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an
opportunity for public comment. If
comments have been requested, it is so
stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission
may issue and make an amendment
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before it of a request for
a hearing from any person, in advance
of the holding and completion of any
required hearing, where it has
determined that no significant hazards
consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the application for
amendment, (2) the amendment to
Facility Operating License or Combined
License, as applicable, and (3) the
Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, any person(s) whose interest
may be affected by this action may file
a request for a hearing and a petition to
intervene with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility
operating license or combined license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
‘‘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, and electronically on
the Internet at the NRC’s Web site,
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If there are problems in
accessing the document, contact the
PDR’s Reference staff at 1–800–397–
4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also
provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters
within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has
made a final determination that the
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, if a hearing is
requested, it will not stay the
effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the
amendment is in effect.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
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/gettingstarted.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/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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61667
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://ehd1.
nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant
to an order of the Commission, or the
presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request:
September 15, 2014, as supplemented
by letter dated September 18, 2014.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment inserts a temporary
change to Surveillance Requirement
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
61668
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3.8.6.6 by reducing the required Battery
22 capacity from 85 percent to 80
percent through March 6, 2015. The
change is necessary because questions
have been raised about the continued
operability of the battery until the next
scheduled surveillance test that is due
by March 7, 2015. The questions are
based on a concern that the Battery 22
will degrade and no longer meet
Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 before
the next scheduled test and therefore
must be demonstrated to meet the
criteria to ensure strict technical
specification compliance.
Date of issuance: September 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of its issuance date
and shall be implemented upon
approval.
Amendment No.: 278. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14265A329;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
26: The Amendment revised the
technical specifications and the license.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice
was published in the Journal News
located in White Plains, New York, on
September 19, 20, and 21, 2014. The
notice provided an opportunity to
submit comments on the Commission’s
proposed NSHC determination. No
comments have been received.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated September
24, 2014.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho,
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G.
Beasley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas
Date of amendment request:
September 10, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a
one-time Completion Time extension in
TS 3.4.15, ‘‘RCS [reactor coolant system]
Leakage Detection Instrumentation.’’
The amendment added a Note to the 30day Completion Time of Required
Action A.2 to extend the Completion
Time to allow the continued operation
for Cycle 20 with the containment sump
level and flow monitoring system
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Oct 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
inoperable until startup from a plant
shutdown or startup from Refueling
Outage 20 (spring 2015).
Date of issuance: September 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 211. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14259A339;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–42. The amendment revised
the Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Topeka
Capital-Journal newspaper on
September 18–20, 2014, and the Wichita
Eagle newspaper on September 22–24,
2014. The notice provided an
opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission’s proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been
received.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated September
29, 2014.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq.,
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC
20037.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R.
Oesterle.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day
of October 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–24355 Filed 10–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362; NRC–
2014–0223]
Southern California Edison Company
San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 2 and 3
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of receipt; availability;
public meeting; and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
On September 23, 2014, the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) received the Post-Shutdown
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Decommissioning Activities Report
(PSDAR) and the Site Specific
Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE),
dated September 23, 2014, for the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 2 and 3. The PSDAR,
which includes the DCE, provides an
overview of Southern California Edison
Company’s (SCE’s, or the licensee’s)
planned decommissioning activities,
schedule, projected costs, and
environmental impacts for SONGS
Units 2 and 3. The NRC will hold a
public meeting to discuss the PSDAR
and DCE and receive comments.
DATES: Submit comments by December
22, 2014. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received before this date.
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–2014–0223. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Wengert, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–4037,
email: Thomas.Wengert@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0223 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–2014–0223.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61658-61668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24355]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0224]
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 September 18, 2014 to October 1, 2014. The
last biweekly notice was published on September 30, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by November 13, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 15, 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-2014-0224. 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 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-2014-0224 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-2014-0224.
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.
[[Page 61659]]
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-2014-0224 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
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/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
[[Page 61660]]
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 unless the Commission finds
an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case
it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
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 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 the NRC's 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, 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
[[Page 61661]]
to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions
that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent
a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates
good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-
(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 8, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14205A278.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specifications by revising or adding surveillance
requirements (SRs) to verify that the system locations susceptible to
gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide
allowances that permit performance of the verification. The licensee
proposed the changes to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing
Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as
described in Revision 2 of Technical Specification Task Force-523,
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13053A075).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration,
which is presented as follows:
1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Increase in
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS), the
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray (CS)
System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to
provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of 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 revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and 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 accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in
the Margin of Safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, RHR System, and CS System are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances
which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed
change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to
ensure that the subject systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff 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 S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS),
Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 27, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14245A408.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests
approval for a change to the VCSNS licensing basis to incorporate a
supplemental analysis to the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR)
accident.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change, to adopt a new analytical method to
evaluate the effects of a SGTR, does not affect any accident
initiators or precursors since there is no physical change to plant
systems, structures and components [SSCs] or manner in which they
are operated during normal operation. As such, the proposed change
does not increase the probability of an accident.
The ability of operators to mitigate the consequences of an
accident is also not diminished as there is no impact on the design
of mitigating plant systems that would reduce their design
capability or increase their failure probability during normal
operation or accident conditions.
The present methodology for calculating mass transfer (i.e.,
from the reactor coolant system to the secondary side via the failed
SG [steam generator] tube) for input to the radiological
consequences of a postulated SGTR is conservative when compared with
results from the new methodology. As such, the existing licensing
basis methodology for calculating mass transfer will be retained.
The calculated doses for the SGTR event for use in the FSAR [final
safety analysis report] will be updated to reflect the results of
the updated calculations with the reported doses to include 5
percent margin. Although slightly higher than the current analyses
of record, the updated doses are well within regulatory limits and
the increases are not more than minimal. Consistent with VCSNS's
current licensing basis, the dose calculations conform to the
guidance presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183, and Standard Review
Plan [(SRP)] Section 15.0.1.
[[Page 61662]]
The use of this previously approved methodology (WCAP-10698-P-A)
more accurately calculates the plant response to an SGTR event. The
improved accuracy of the new methodology provides valuable
information related to operator actions and associated timing. Such
accurate transient response information enables enhancements to be
made to the emergency operating procedures (EOPs) and allows future
changes to be more effectively assessed for impact.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences or probability of occurrence of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact the design of affected plant
systems, involve a physical alteration to the systems, or change to
the way in which systems are currently operated, such that
previously unanalyzed SGTRs would now occur. Since the design
function and mode of operation of SSCs in the facility prior to a
postulated accident are unchanged, the change to adopt a new
analytical method to evaluate the effects of a tube rupture does not
introduce any new malfunctions. Its use is beneficial in that it
allows for a more accurate prediction of the plant response
following a postulated SGTR to determine the time available for
operator actions to prevent overfilling the affected SG. Thus, the
proposed change does not affect or create new accident initiators or
precursors or create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The approval of the proposed change will not result in any
modifications to affected plant systems that would reduce their
design capabilities during normal operating and accident conditions.
By using the WCAP-10698-P-A methodology, a more accurate SGTR
response is calculated. The improved understanding of the transient
response enables enhancements to the EOPs, which provide further
assurance the SSCs required for accident mitigation are available
and that required actions can be accomplished in a time frame to
prevent overfill of a ruptured SG.
The SGTR dose consequences to be reported in the FSAR are well
within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, RG 1.183,
and SRP 15.0.1. Given this, there is no 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Docket Nos.: 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 22, 2014, and revised by the
letter dated September 23, 2014. Publicly-available versions are
available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14234A423 and ML14266A656,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request
consists of changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design
Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 information and involves changes to Tier
2* and Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes associated with
combined license (COL) Appendix C information.
The proposed changes include:
(a) Installation of an additional non-safety-related battery;
(b) Revision to the annex building internal configuration by
converting a shift turnover room to a battery room, adding an
additional battery equipment room, and moving a fire area wall;
(c) Increase in the height of a room in the annex building; and
(d) Increase in thicknesses of certain floor of the annex building.
In addition, the proposed changes also include reconfiguring
existing rooms and related room, wall, and access path changes.
Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee
also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD
Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
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 additions of a new nonsafety-related battery,
battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase,
the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural
internal wall, and the associated wall, room and corridor changes
within the annex building do not adversely affect the fire loading
analysis durations of the affected fire zones and areas (i.e., the
calculated fire durations remain less than their design values).
Thus, the fire loads analysis is not adversely affected (i.e.,
analysis results remain acceptable). The safe shutdown fire analysis
is not affected. The proposed changes to the structural
configuration, including anticipated equipment loading, room height,
and floor thickness are accounted for in the updated structural
configuration model that was used to analyze the Annex Building for
safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and other design loads and load
combinations, thus the structural analysis is not adversely
affected. The structural analysis description and results in the
UFSAR are unchanged. The relocated internal Annex Building wall is
non-structural, thus this change does not affect the structural
analyses for the Annex Building. The proposed changes do not involve
any accident initiating event or component failure, thus the
probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The rooms affected by the proposed changes do not contain
or interface with safety-related equipment, thus the proposed
changes would not affect any safety-related equipment or accident
mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and
release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the
radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
With the conversion of an annex building room to a battery room,
the building volume serviced by nuclear island nonradioactive
ventilation system decreases by approximate five percent. This
reduced volume is used in the post-accident main control room dose
portion of the UFSAR LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] radiological
analysis. However, the volume decrease is not sufficient to change
the calculated main control room dose reported in the UFSAR, and
control room habitability is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery,
battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase,
the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural
internal wall, and their associated wall, room and corridor changes
do not change fire barrier performance, and the fire loading
analyses results remain acceptable. The room height and floor
thickness changes are consistent with the annex building
configuration used in the building's structural analysis. The
relocated internal wall is non-structural, thus the structural
analyses for the annex building are not affected. The affected rooms
and associated equipment do not interface with components that
contain radioactive material. The affected rooms do not contain
equipment whose failure could initiate an accident. The proposed
changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could
result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
[[Page 61663]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed additions of a new nonsafety-related battery,
battery room and battery equipment room, the room height increase,
the floor thickness changes, the relocation of a non-structural
internal wall, and their associated wall, room and corridor changes
do not change the fire barrier performance of the affected fire
areas. The affected rooms do not contain safety-related equipment,
and the safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected. Because the
proposed change does not alter compliance with the construction
codes to which the annex building is designed and constructed, the
proposed changes to the structural configuration, including
anticipated equipment loading, room height, and floor thickness do
not adversely affect the safety margins associated with the seismic
Category II structural capability of the annex building.
The floor areas and amounts of combustible material loads in
affected fire zones and areas do not significantly change, such that
their fire duration times remain within their two-hour design value,
thus the safety margins associated with the fire loads analysis are
not affected.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of
safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: August 27, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14246A190.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
requests changes to the Technical Specification (TS) to revise TS
Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, for the North Anna Units 1 and 2 Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) Heatup Limitations and RCS Cooldown Limitations,
respectively, for clarification and to be fully representative of the
allowable operating conditions during RCS startup and cooldown
evolutions.
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 clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2
does not involve a physical change to the plant and does not change
the manner in which plant systems or components are operated or
controlled. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of structures, system, and components (SSCs) to perform
their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The P/T
[pressure/temperature] curves on TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 are
not being modified and remain valid.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
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 clarification of TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2
does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment;
consequently, no new or different types of equipment will be
installed. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The P/T curves on TS
Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 are not being modified, and the basic
operation of installed plant systems and components is unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing RCS P/T curves on TS Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2
are not being modified. The proposed clarification of TS Figures
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 does not alter any plant equipment, does not
change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled, and
has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The proposed change does not result in plant operation
in a configuration outside the analyses or design basis and does not
adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant
and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14258A179.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification 4.3.4.b to reflect the removal of the energy
absorbing pad from the spent fuel pool and the installation of a
leveling platform.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56608).
Expiration date of individual notice: October 26, 2014 (public
comments); November 22, 2014 (hearing requests).
IV. 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
[[Page 61664]]
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of application for amendments: October 24, 2013, as
supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the ONS
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to clarify the Quality
Assurance (QA) requirements for Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF)
equipment. The proposed change revises ONS UFSAR Section 3.1.1.1 to
clarify that the QA requirements applied to certain equipment relied
upon to perform the SSF function that existed prior to the construction
of the SSF, will be consistent with the original QA requirements for
that equipment.
Date of Issuance: September 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 387, 389, and 388. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14254A246. Documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79
FR 9493). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as noticed, and did not change the staff's
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 1, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated August 21, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 2.0, ``Safety Limits (SLs),'' by changing the safety
limit minimum critical power ratio for both single and dual
recirculation loop operation.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 307. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14258B189; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45487). The supplemental letter dated August 21, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination (NSHC) as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC
determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: October 26, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated May 28 and August 28, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted Paragraph
2.C.(32) of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Facility Operating
License, which currently prohibits operating with partial feedwater
heating for the purpose of extending the fuel cycle at rated power
conditions.
Date of issuance: September 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 199. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14162A378; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2013 (78
FR 9948). The supplemental letters dated May 28 and August 28, 2013,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment requests: July 25, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated June 1, October 21, and November 14, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification 3.1.3 to allow the normally required near end-of-life
Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) measurement to not be
[[Page 61665]]
performed under certain conditions. If these conditions are met, the
MTC measurement would be replaced by a calculated value.
Date of issuance: September 17, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
with 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 291 and 178. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14245A151; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77
FR 53929). The supplements dated June 1, October 21, and November 14,
2013, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC 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 September 17, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014, and August 21, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane
Arnold Energy Center Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements
(SRs) 3.8.4.1 and 3.8.4.6 by changing the battery terminal voltage, the
battery charger voltage, and amperage provided in these SRs to account
for the replacement of the existing 58-cell 125 volts direct current
(VDC) batteries with new 60-cell 125 VDC batteries.
Date of issuance: September 26, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14259A292; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 24, 2013 (78
FR 77732). The supplemental letters dated May 28, 2014, July 24, 2014,
and August 21, 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 September 26, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-
362, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, San
Diego County, California
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated June 5, 2014, August 11, 2014, and September 15, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and removed
certain requirements from the Section 5, ``Administrative Controls,''
portions of the SONGS Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications (TSs) that
are no longer applicable to the units in a permanently defueled
condition. Specifically, the amendments revised TS Sections 5.1,
``Responsibility,'' 5.2, ``Organization,'' and 5.3, ``Facility Staff
Qualifications,'' to reflect new staffing and training requirements for
operating staff.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
Effective date: Upon issuance, to be implemented within 60 days of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-227; Unit 3-220. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14183B240; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 24, 2013 (78
FR 77733). The supplemental letters dated June 5, 2014, August 11,
2014, and September 15, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: August 20, 2013, as
supplemented by letters dated February 24 and June 12, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant Emergency Plan by revising certain Emergency
Action Level thresholds by removing Main Steam Line radiation monitors
RE-13119, RE-13120, RE-13121, and RE-13122 to address limitations of
these monitors.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 172 and 154. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14170A911; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 17, 2013 (78
FR 57184). The supplemental letters dated on February 24, and June 12,
2014, provided additional information clarifying the LAR, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the
[[Page 61666]]
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's
rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR's Reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by
the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
[[Page 61667]]
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
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, 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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 15, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated September 18, 2014.
Description of amendment request: The amendment inserts a temporary
change to Surveillance Requirement
[[Page 61668]]
3.8.6.6 by reducing the required Battery 22 capacity from 85 percent to
80 percent through March 6, 2015. The change is necessary because
questions have been raised about the continued operability of the
battery until the next scheduled surveillance test that is due by March
7, 2015. The questions are based on a concern that the Battery 22 will
degrade and no longer meet Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 before the
next scheduled test and therefore must be demonstrated to meet the
criteria to ensure strict technical specification compliance.
Date of issuance: September 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of its issuance date and shall be implemented
upon approval.
Amendment No.: 278. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14265A329; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The Amendment revised the
technical specifications and the license.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. A notice was published in the Journal News
located in White Plains, New York, on September 19, 20, and 21, 2014.
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been
received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 24, 2014.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: September 10, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to incorporate a one-time Completion Time
extension in TS 3.4.15, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation.'' The amendment added a Note to the 30-day
Completion Time of Required Action A.2 to extend the Completion Time to
allow the continued operation for Cycle 20 with the containment sump
level and flow monitoring system inoperable until startup from a plant
shutdown or startup from Refueling Outage 20 (spring 2015).
Date of issuance: September 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14259A339; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper on
September 18-20, 2014, and the Wichita Eagle newspaper on September 22-
24, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been
received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated September 29, 2014.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-24355 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P