Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 73106-73115 [2014-28704]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73106
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Denise L. McGovern,
Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch 4,
Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of
New Reactors.
III. License Amendment Request
The request for the amendment and
exemption was submitted by the letter
dated October 2, 2013. The licensee
supplemented this request by letter
dated February 28, 2014. The proposed
license amendment request revises
Tables 2.6.2–1, 2.6.2–2, 2.6.3–1, and
2.6.3–4 and Figure 2.6.2–1 of Appendix
C of the Facility Combined License of
Appendix C to the COLs.
The Commission has determined for
these amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register on
November 26, 2013 (78 FR 70589). No
comments were received during the 60day comment period.
The Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore,
pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no
environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3. As explained in Section 5 of the
NRC staff Safety Evaluation (ADAMS
Accession Number ML14260A017), this
exemption meets the eligibility criteria
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10
CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to
10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment needs to be prepared in
connection with the issuance of the
exemption.
4. This exemption is effective as of
October 24, 2014.
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
IV. Conclusion
Using the reasons set forth in the
combined safety evaluation, the staff
granted the exemption and issued the
amendment that the licensee requested
on October 2, 2013, and supplemented
by letter dated February 28, 2014. The
exemption and amendment were issued
on October 24, 2014 as part of a
combined package to the licensee
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14260A004).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of December 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
[FR Doc. 2014–28867 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0260]
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 November
13, 2014 to November 26, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on
November 25, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
January 8, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by February 9, 2015.
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–2014–0260. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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:
Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–3760,
email: mable.henderson@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0260 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–2014–0260.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–
0260 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.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
§ 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the NRC’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Room
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC’s regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC’s Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73107
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment 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
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73108
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
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/
getting-started.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Web-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
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/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC.,
and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: June 12,
2014. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14168A302.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the site emergency plan (SEP) and
Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme
to reflect the reduced scope of offsite
and onsite emergency planning and the
significantly reduced spectrum of
credible accidents that can occur for the
permanently defueled condition.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the emergency
plan and EAL scheme do not impact the
function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The proposed changes
do not affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor does it alter design assumptions. The
proposed changes do not prevent the ability
of the on-shift staff and emergency response
organization (ERO) to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of any
accident or event that will be credible in the
permanently defueled condition.
The probability of occurrence of previously
evaluated accidents is not increased, since
most previously analyzed accidents can no
longer occur and the probability of the few
remaining credible accidents are unaffected
by the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the scope of
the emergency plan and EAL scheme
commensurate with the hazards associated
with a permanently shutdown and defueled
facility. The proposed changes do not involve
installation of new equipment or
modification of existing equipment, so that
no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do
not result in a change to the way that the
equipment or facility is operated so that no
new or different kinds of accident initiators
are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed
changes are associated with the emergency
plan and EAL scheme and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to
transients or accidents. The change does not
affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, and no
accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by the proposed
changes. The revised SEP will continue to
provide the necessary response staff with the
proposed changes.
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: Ms. Jeanne Cho,
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: August
28, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14241A305.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the 10year frequency of the Type A or
Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) that is
required by Technical Specification (TS)
6.15, ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,’’ to be extended to 15
years on a permanent basis.
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 amendment involves
changes to the WF3 Containment Leakage
Rate Testing Program. The proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73109
amendment does not involve a physical
change to the plant or a change in the manner
in which the plant is operated or controlled.
The primary reactor building function is to
provide an essentially leak tight barrier
against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the reactor
building itself and the testing requirements to
periodically demonstrate the integrity of the
reactor building exist to ensure the plant’s
ability to mitigate the consequences of an
accident, and do not involve any accident
precursors or initiators. Therefore, the
probability of occurrence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly
increased by the proposed amendment.
The integrity of the reactor building is
subject to two (2) types of failure
mechanisms which can be categorized as (1)
activity based and (2) time based. Activity
based failure mechanisms are defined as
degradation due to system and/or component
modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate
test requirements and administrative controls
such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system
restoration ensure that the reactor building
containment integrity is not degraded by
plant modifications or maintenance
activities. The design and construction
requirements of the reactor building itself
combined with the reactor building
inspections performed in accordance with
ASME [American Society for Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code],
Section XI, the Maintenance Rule and
regulatory commitments serve to provide a
high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
that is detectable only by a Type A test.
Based on the above, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident
previously evaluate.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of [Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 2–A,
‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J,’’ October 2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100620847)] for
development of the WF3 performance-based
testing program. Implementation of these
guidelines continues to provide adequate
assurance that during design basis accidents,
the primary containment and its components
will limit leakage rates to less than values
assumed in the plant safety analyses. The
potential consequences of extending the ILRT
interval to fifteen (15) years have been
evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes
in risk. The increase in risk in terms of
person-rem per year within fifty (50) miles
resulting from design basis accidents was
estimated to be acceptably small and
determined to be within the guidelines
published in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174.
Additionally, the proposed change maintains
defense-in-depth by preserving a reasonable
balance among prevention of core damage,
prevention of containment failure, and
consequence mitigation. WF3 has determined
that the increase in Conditional Containment
Failure Probability due to the proposed
change would be very small. Therefore, it is
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73110
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
concluded that the proposed amendment
does not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Based on the above discussion, it is
concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision
2–A, for the development of the WF3
performance-based leakage testing program,
and establishes a fifteen (15) year interval for
the performance of the reactor building ILRT.
The reactor building and the testing
requirements to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the reactor building exist to
ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change to the manner in which the plant
is operated or controlled.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision
2–A, for the development of the WF3
performance-based leakage testing program,
and establishes a fifteen (15) year interval for
the performance of the containment ILRT.
This amendment does not alter the manner
in which safety limits, limiting safety system
set points, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The specific
requirements and conditions of the Reactor
Building Leakage Rate Testing Program, as
defined in the TS, ensure that the degree of
the reactor building structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the
plant’s safety analysis is maintained. The
overall reactor building leakage rate limit
specified by the TS is maintained, and the
Type A, Type B, and Type C containment
leakage tests will be performed at the
frequencies established in accordance with
the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94–01,
Revision 2–A.
Containment inspections performed in
accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk
assessment using the current WF3 risk model
concluded that extending the ILRT test
interval from ten (10) years to fifteen (15)
years results in a very small change to the
WF3 risk profile.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
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: Joseph A.
Aluise, Associate General Council—
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, (TMI–1)
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October
30, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14304A083.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would change the
TMI–1 technical specifications (TSs).
Specifically, the proposed amendment
would modify the TS Table 3.1.6.1,
‘‘Pressure Isolation Check Valves
between the Primary Coolant System &
LPIS [Low Pressure Injection System],’’
maximum allowable leakage limits.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not alter the
way any structure, system, or component
(SSC) functions, and will not alter the
manner in which the plant is operated. In
addition, the proposed amendment will not
impact the ability of any SSC to mitigate an
accident as currently evaluated in the UFSAR
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
This proposed change deletes certain
Reactor Coolant System Pressure Isolation
Valve (RCS PIV) allowable leakage
surveillance testing criteria in consideration
of the safety significance and design
capabilities of the plant and current industry
testing and maintenance practices. The
proposed change is consistent with Improved
Standard Technical Specification (ITS)
NUREG 1430, [‘‘]Standard Technical
Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants,’’
Revision 4, and current RCS PIV leak testing
practices. The maximum allowable leakage
rate of 5 gpm [gallons per minute] remains
unchanged; only the leakage testing
incremental testing acceptance criteria below
the 5 gpm limit is being deleted. Since the
testing frequency and maximum allowable
leakage remains unchanged, the probability
or consequence of an interfacing system loss-
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of-coolant accident (ISLOCA) is unaffected.
There are no changes to the [American
Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME
[Operation and Maintenance] OM Code
leakage testing requirements and methods for
this class of valves. Additionally, two
typographical errors and one clerical error
are being corrected which are administrative
in nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision is not a result of
changes to plant equipment, system design,
or operating practices. The modified [limiting
condition of operation] LCO requirement will
allow some relaxation of the leak testing
method acceptance criteria for the RCS PIVs,
consistent with NUREG–1430. Since the
functions of the associated systems will
continue to perform without change, the
proposed changes will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed changes do
not introduce any new failure modes.
Additionally, two typographical errors and
one clerical error are being corrected which
are administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the RCS PIV
leakage testing acceptance criteria will not
result in changes to system design or
setpoints that are intended to ensure timely
identification of plant conditions that could
be precursors to accidents or potential
degradation of accident mitigation systems.
Since testing frequency and maximum
allowable leakage for the RCS PIVs remain
unchanged, the margin associated with the
identification of RCS PIV degradation is not
significantly reduced. The confidence in the
ability of the fission product barriers (fuel
cladding, RCS boundary, containment) to
limit the level of radiation dose to the public
remains the same. Additionally, two
typographical errors and one clerical error
are being corrected which are administrative
in nature.
Since the setpoints and design features that
support the margin of safety are unchanged,
and actions for inoperable systems continue
to provide appropriate time limits and
compensatory measures, the proposed
changes will not significantly reduce the
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley
Fewell, Esquire, Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request:
November 25, 2013. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML13330A557.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs) to permit the use of Risk-Informed
Completion Times (CTs) in accordance
with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) traveler, TSTF–505, Revision 1,
‘‘Provide Risk-Informed Extended
Completion Times—RITSTF [RiskedInformed TSTF] Initiative 4b.’’ The
proposed amendment would, in part,
modify selected Required Actions to
permit extending the CTs in accordance
with a new TS-required risk-informed
completion time (RICT) program. The
availability of the model safety
evaluation for TSTF–505 was published
by the NRC staff in the Federal Register
on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15399,) for
referencing in license amendment
applications.
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 permits the
extension of CTs provided the associated risk
is assessed and managed in accordance with
the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed
Completion Time (RICT) Program. The
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the
change involves no change to the plant or its
modes of operation. The proposed change
does not increase the consequences of an
accident [previously evaluated] because the
design basis mitigation function of the
affected systems is not changed and the
consequences of an accident during the
extended CT are no different from those
during the existing CT.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility [of a] different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change the
design, configuration, or method of operation
of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different kind of equipment will be
installed).
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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change permit[s] the
extension of CTs provided risk is assessed
and managed in accordance with the NRC[]approved RICT Program. The proposed
change implements a risk-informed
configuration management program to assure
that adequate margins of safety are
maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative
effects of multiple systems or components
being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS.
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
requested amendment involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post,
Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California
94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company Docket Nos.: 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request:
September 11, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14254A371.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes would revise the
Combined Licenses by clarifying the
position on design diversity, specifically
human diversity, as related to the
Component Interface Module (CIM) and
Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73111
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 requested amendment proposes
changes to licensing basis documents to
clarify the position on the human diversity
aspects of design diversity as related to the
Component Interface Module (CIM) and
Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design
processes. A review confirmed that the
clarified position on human diversity would
not change the CIM or DAS design. The
requested changes to information presented
in the Tier 2* and Tier 2 supporting
documentation clarify the level of human
diversity applied. The change continues to
comply with the regulatory guidance in
NUREG/CR–6303 regarding credible defenses
against a postulated Common Cause Failure
(CCF) of the Plant Monitoring and Safety
System. The proposed change does not affect
the plant itself. The change does not affect
prevention and mitigation of abnormal
events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods
and turbine missiles, or their safety or design
analyses. No safety-related structure, system,
or component (SSC) or function is adversely
affected. The change does not involve nor
interface with any SSC accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) are not affected. This activity will
not allow for a new fission product release
path, nor will it result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, nor create a
new sequence of events that would result in
significant fuel cladding failures. Because the
proposed changes do not change any safetyrelated SSC or function credited in the
mitigation of an accident, the consequences
of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are
not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes clarify the position
on human diversity and show that the CIM/
DAS diversity meets the regulatory guidance
in NUREG/CR–6303. The clarified
descriptions do not affect the plant itself.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect
any safety-related equipment itself, nor do
they affect equipment whose failure could
initiate an accident or a failure of a fission
product barrier. No analysis is adversely
affected by the proposed changes. No system
or design function or equipment qualification
would be adversely affected by the proposed
changes. Furthermore, the proposed changes
do not result in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
73112
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to information
presented in referenced licensing basis
documents clarify the position regarding
human diversity and do not affect the plant
itself. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the design, construction, or operation
of any plant SSCs, including any equipment
whose failure could initiate an accident or a
failure of a fission product barrier. No
analysis is adversely affected by the proposed
changes. Furthermore, no system function,
design function, or equipment qualification
will be adversely affected by the changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD 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: Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company Docket Nos.: 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: October
23, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14296A758.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes would revise the
Combined Licenses (COLs) changing the
description and scope of the Initial Test
Program. Because, this proposed change
requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control
Document (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 amendment is related to the
conduct of the Initial Test Program. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
proposed changes are made in compliance
with the applicable regulatory guides, are
only related to the general aspects of how the
program is executed and do not change any
technical content for preoperational or
startup tests. No changes are made to any
design aspect of the plant.
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 amendment is related to the
conduct of the Initial Test Program. The
proposed changes are made in compliance
with the applicable regulatory guides, are
only related to the general aspects of how the
program is executed and do not change any
technical content for preoperational or
startup tests. These changes do not affect the
design or analyzed operation of any system.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is related to the
conduct of the Initial Test Program. The
proposed changes are made in compliance
with the applicable regulatory guides, are
only related to the general aspects of how the
program is executed and do not change any
technical content for preoperational or
startup tests. 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: Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),
Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October
16, 2014. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14290A139.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and
NPF–92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The requested amendment proposes
changes to revise the VEGP Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR),
involving Tier 1 and associated Tier 2
departures to add or delete piping line
numbers of existing piping lines, or
updating the functional capability
classification of existing process flow
lines.
Because this proposed change
requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 design control
document (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 COL Appendix C Tables and
corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 Tables
proposed changes involve updating piping
line name/number or functional capability
requirements. These changes do not affect
any system design function. Adding or
updating information for existing ASME
Section III piping does not involve (i.e.,
cannot affect) any accident initiating event or
component failure, thus, the probabilities of
the accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The maximum allowable leakage
rate specified in the Technical Specifications
is unchanged and radiological material
release source terms are not affected, thus,
the radiological releases in the accident
analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The COL Appendix C Tables and
corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 Tables
proposed changes to update piping line
name/number or functional capability
requirements do not adversely affect the
design or quality of any structure, system, or
component. Adding or updating ASME
Section III piping line information for
existing process piping lines to a licensing
table does not create a new fault or sequence
of events that could result in a radioactive
material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
The COL Appendix C Tables and
corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 Tables
proposed changes involve updating piping
line name/number or functional capability
requirements information for new/existing
process piping lines. Adding or updating the
ASME Section III piping line name/number
or functional capability requirements in the
tables would not affect any radioactive
material barrier. 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, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request:
November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14311A158.
Brief description of amendment
request: The proposed amendment
revises a limited number of Technical
Specification Surveillance
Requirements by adding a note or
footnote permitting a one-time
extension from a refueling frequency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
(i.e., at least once per 18 months) to a
maximum of 28 months. These
surveillance requirements include (1)
manual containment isolation actuation,
(2) manual recirculation actuation and
recirculation actuation logic, (3) steam
generator level calibration, (4) visual
examination of the high-efficiency
particulate air and charcoal filters in the
containment recirculating air cooling
and filtering system, (5) emergency
diesel generators, and (6) residual heat
removal system integrity. An extension
is necessary because these tests will
expire before the next refueling outage
begins on April 11, 2015.
Date of publication of individual
notice in Federal Register: November
17, 2014 (79 FR 68487).
Expiration date of individual notice:
December 17, 2014 (public comments);
January 17, 2015 (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
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73113
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1,
Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: January
28, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated August 28, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related
to direct current (DC) electrical systems
as specified in TS Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) 3.8.4, ‘‘DC
Sources—Operating,’’ LCO 3.8.5, ‘‘DC
Sources—Shutdown,’’ and LCO 3.8.6,
‘‘Battery Parameters.’’ A new ‘‘Battery
Monitoring and Maintenance Program’’
is now required under TS Section 5.5,
‘‘Administrative Controls—Programs
and Manuals.’’ These changes are
consistent with the NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–500, Revision 2,
‘‘DC Electrical Rewrite—Update to
TSTF–360.’’ The availability of this TS
improvement was announced in the
Federal Register on September 1, 2011
(76 FR 54510).
Date of issuance: November 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 250. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14254A133;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25313).
The supplemental letter dated 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 November 24,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
73114
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–373, LaSalle County
Station (LSCS), Unit 1, LaSalle County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request:
December 20, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated February 26, 2014,
September 11, 2014 (2 letters), and
October 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the LSCS, Unit 1,
pressure and temperature curves,
Figures 3.4.11–1 through 3.4.11–3, in
Technical Specification 3.4.11, ‘‘RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and
Temperature (P/T) Limits.’’
Date of issuance: November 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14288A151;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
11: Amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45490).
The supplemental letters dated
September 11, 2014 (2 letters) and
October 14, 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 November 25,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Indiana Michigan Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request:
November 6, 2013, supplemented by
letters dated June 13, 2014, and August
15, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specification 3.6.13, Divider Barrier
Integrity, Surveillance Requirement
3.6.13.5 for the divider barrier seal
inspection for the Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: November 20, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
Amendment Nos.: 324 for Unit 1 and
307 for Unit 2.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: The
amendments revise the Facility
Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR
9496). The supplemental letters dated
June 13, 2014, and August 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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 20,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March
11, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated July 3, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment changes the reactor steam
dome pressure value specified in
technical specification (TS) 2.1.1,
‘‘Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],’’ from
785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)
to 686 psig. This change resolves a 10
CFR part 21, ‘‘Reporting of Defects and
Noncompliance,’’ condition concerning
a potential to momentarily violate the
safety limit specified in TS 2.1.1.1
during a pressure regulator failure
maximum demand (open) transient.
Date of issuance: November 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 185. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14281A318;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–22: This amendment revises
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35064).
The supplemental letter dated July 3,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 25,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of amendment request: May 23,
2013, as supplemented by letter dated
March 25, June 26, and October 20,
2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),’’ to
reference and allow use of
Westinghouse report WCAP–16045–P–
A, ‘‘Qualification of the TwoDimensional Transport Code
PARAGON’’ and WCAP–16045–P–A,
Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Qualification of the
NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology,’’ to
determine core operating limits.
Date of issuance: November 19, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–211; Unit
2–199. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14296A666; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–42, and DPR–60: These
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating License and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51229). The supplements dated March
25, June 26, and October 20, 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 November 19,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
Date of amendment request: July 2,
2013, and revised by letters dated
February 14, and June 20, 2014, and
supplemented by letters dated August
28 and October 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the design of
connections between reinforced
concrete and steel plate concrete
composite construction included in the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4 updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and
changes to the Technical Report, ‘‘APP–
GW–GLR–602, AP1000 Shield Building
Design Details for Select Wall and RC/
SC Connections,’’ (prepared by
Westinghouse Electric Company and
reviewed by the NRC as part of the
design certification rule). This
Technical Report is incorporated by
reference in the VEGP, Units 3 and 4
UFSAR.
Date of issuance: November 21, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 26. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14322A275;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR
54287).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 21,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR
54287).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 21,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
[FR Doc. 2014–28704 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
of December 2014.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:48 Dec 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
[Docket Nos. MC2015–13 and CP2015–16;
Order No. 2269]
New Postal Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
The Commission is noticing a
recent Postal Service filing concerning
the addition of Priority Mail Contract
102 negotiated service agreement. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: December
10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Notice of Commission Action
III. Ordering Paragraphs
I. Introduction
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3642
and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq., the Postal
Service filed a formal request and
associated supporting information to
add Priority Mail Contract 102 to the
competitive product list.1
The Postal Service
contemporaneously filed a redacted
contract related to the proposed new
product under 39 U.S.C. 3632(b)(3) and
39 CFR 3015.5. Id. Attachment B.
To support its Request, the Postal
Service filed a copy of the contract, a
copy of the Governors’ Decision
authorizing the product, proposed
changes to the Mail Classification
1 Request of the United States Postal Service to
Add Priority Mail Contract 102 to Competitive
Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of
Unredacted Governors’ Decision, Contract, and
Supporting Data, December 2, 2014 (Request).
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Schedule, a Statement of Supporting
Justification, a certification of
compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and
an application for non-public treatment
of certain materials. It also filed
supporting financial workpapers.
II. Notice of Commission Action
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
ACTION:
73115
Sfmt 4703
The Commission establishes Docket
Nos. MC2015–13 and CP2015–16 to
consider the Request pertaining to the
proposed Priority Mail Contract 102
product and the related contract,
respectively.
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s filings in
the captioned dockets are consistent
with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632,
3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39
CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are
due no later than December 10, 2014.
The public portions of these filings can
be accessed via the Commission’s Web
site (https://www.prc.gov).
The Commission appoints Kenneth R.
Moeller to serve as Public
Representative in these dockets.
III. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
Nos. MC2015–13 and CP2015–16 to
consider the matters raised in each
docket.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth
R. Moeller is appointed to serve as an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in
these proceedings (Public
Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than
December 10, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–28744 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Product Change—Priority Mail
Negotiated Service Agreement
Postal ServiceTM.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Postal Service gives
notice of filing a request with the Postal
Regulatory Commission to add a
domestic shipping services contract to
the list of Negotiated Service
Agreements in the Mail Classification
Schedule’s Competitive Products List.
DATES: Effective date: December 9, 2014.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73106-73115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28704]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0260]
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 November 13, 2014 to November 26, 2014. The
last biweekly notice was published on November 25, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 8, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 9, 2015.
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-2014-0260. 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: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: mable.henderson@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0260 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-2014-0260.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0260 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.
[[Page 73107]]
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 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
[[Page 73108]]
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.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
[[Page 73109]]
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC., and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: June 12, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14168A302.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the site emergency plan (SEP) and Emergency Action Level (EAL)
scheme to reflect the reduced scope of offsite and onsite emergency
planning and the significantly reduced spectrum of credible accidents
that can occur for the permanently defueled condition.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the emergency plan and EAL scheme do not
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or
precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed
changes do not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and
emergency response organization (ERO) to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that
will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents can no
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the scope of the emergency plan and
EAL scheme commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new or
different kinds of accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are
associated with the emergency plan and EAL scheme and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the
proposed changes. The revised SEP will continue to provide the
necessary response staff with the proposed changes.
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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 400 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (WF3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: August 28, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14241A305.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
10-year frequency of the Type A or Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT)
that is required by Technical Specification (TS) 6.15, ``Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to be extended to 15 years on a
permanent basis.
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 amendment involves changes to the WF3 Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program. The proposed amendment does not
involve a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in
which the plant is operated or controlled. The primary reactor
building function is to provide an essentially leak tight barrier
against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment
for postulated accidents. As such, the reactor building itself and
the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity
of the reactor building exist to ensure the plant's ability to
mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve any
accident precursors or initiators. Therefore, the probability of
occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased by the proposed amendment.
The integrity of the reactor building is subject to two (2)
types of failure mechanisms which can be categorized as (1) activity
based and (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are
defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications
or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative
controls such as configuration management and procedural
requirements for system restoration ensure that the reactor building
containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of
the reactor building itself combined with the reactor building
inspections performed in accordance with ASME [American Society for
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code], Section XI,
the Maintenance Rule and regulatory commitments serve to provide a
high degree of assurance that the containment will not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above,
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident previously evaluate.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of
[Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 2-A, ``Industry
Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part
50, Appendix J,'' October 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100620847)]
for development of the WF3 performance-based testing program.
Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate
assurance that during design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components will limit leakage rates to less than
values assumed in the plant safety analyses. The potential
consequences of extending the ILRT interval to fifteen (15) years
have been evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes in risk. The
increase in risk in terms of person-rem per year within fifty (50)
miles resulting from design basis accidents was estimated to be
acceptably small and determined to be within the guidelines
published in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the proposed
change maintains defense-in-depth by preserving a reasonable balance
among prevention of core damage, prevention of containment failure,
and consequence mitigation. WF3 has determined that the increase in
Conditional Containment Failure Probability due to the proposed
change would be very small. Therefore, it is
[[Page 73110]]
concluded that the proposed amendment does not significantly
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 2-A, for the development of the WF3 performance-
based leakage testing program, and establishes a fifteen (15) year
interval for the performance of the reactor building ILRT. The
reactor building and the testing requirements to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the reactor building exist to ensure
the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and
do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed
change does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new
or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the
manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 2-A, for the development of the WF3 performance-
based leakage testing program, and establishes a fifteen (15) year
interval for the performance of the containment ILRT. This amendment
does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the Reactor
Building Leakage Rate Testing Program, as defined in the TS, ensure
that the degree of the reactor building structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant's safety analysis is
maintained. The overall reactor building leakage rate limit
specified by the TS is maintained, and the Type A, Type B, and Type
C containment leakage tests will be performed at the frequencies
established in accordance with the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 2-A.
Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant
programs serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner that is not detectable by
an ILRT. A risk assessment using the current WF3 risk model
concluded that extending the ILRT test interval from ten (10) years
to fifteen (15) years results in a very small change to the WF3 risk
profile.
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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Council--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, (TMI-1) Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14304A083.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the
TMI-1 technical specifications (TSs). Specifically, the proposed
amendment would modify the TS Table 3.1.6.1, ``Pressure Isolation Check
Valves between the Primary Coolant System & LPIS [Low Pressure
Injection System],'' maximum allowable leakage limits.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not alter the way any structure,
system, or component (SSC) functions, and will not alter the manner
in which the plant is operated. In addition, the proposed amendment
will not impact the ability of any SSC to mitigate an accident as
currently evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report].
This proposed change deletes certain Reactor Coolant System
Pressure Isolation Valve (RCS PIV) allowable leakage surveillance
testing criteria in consideration of the safety significance and
design capabilities of the plant and current industry testing and
maintenance practices. The proposed change is consistent with
Improved Standard Technical Specification (ITS) NUREG 1430,
[``]Standard Technical Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants,''
Revision 4, and current RCS PIV leak testing practices. The maximum
allowable leakage rate of 5 gpm [gallons per minute] remains
unchanged; only the leakage testing incremental testing acceptance
criteria below the 5 gpm limit is being deleted. Since the testing
frequency and maximum allowable leakage remains unchanged, the
probability or consequence of an interfacing system loss-of-coolant
accident (ISLOCA) is unaffected. There are no changes to the
[American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME [Operation and
Maintenance] OM Code leakage testing requirements and methods for
this class of valves. Additionally, two typographical errors and one
clerical error are being corrected which are administrative in
nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision is not a result of changes to plant
equipment, system design, or operating practices. The modified
[limiting condition of operation] LCO requirement will allow some
relaxation of the leak testing method acceptance criteria for the
RCS PIVs, consistent with NUREG-1430. Since the functions of the
associated systems will continue to perform without change, the
proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not introduce any new failure
modes. Additionally, two typographical errors and one clerical error
are being corrected which are administrative in nature.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to the RCS PIV leakage testing acceptance
criteria will not result in changes to system design or setpoints
that are intended to ensure timely identification of plant
conditions that could be precursors to accidents or potential
degradation of accident mitigation systems. Since testing frequency
and maximum allowable leakage for the RCS PIVs remain unchanged, the
margin associated with the identification of RCS PIV degradation is
not significantly reduced. The confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, RCS boundary, containment)
to limit the level of radiation dose to the public remains the same.
Additionally, two typographical errors and one clerical error are
being corrected which are administrative in nature.
Since the setpoints and design features that support the margin
of safety are unchanged, and actions for inoperable systems continue
to provide appropriate time limits and compensatory measures, the
proposed changes will not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
[[Page 73111]]
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: November 25, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13330A557.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to permit the use of Risk-
Informed Completion Times (CTs) in accordance with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler, TSTF-505, Revision 1,
``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF [Risked-
Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b.'' The proposed amendment would, in part,
modify selected Required Actions to permit extending the CTs in
accordance with a new TS-required risk-informed completion time (RICT)
program. The availability of the model safety evaluation for TSTF-505
was published by the NRC staff in the Federal Register on March 15,
2012 (77 FR 15399,) for referencing in license amendment applications.
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 permits the extension of CTs provided the
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC[-
]approved Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program. The proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident previously evaluated because the change involves no
change to the plant or its modes of operation. The proposed change
does not increase the consequences of an accident [previously
evaluated] because the design basis mitigation function of the
affected systems is not changed and the consequences of an accident
during the extended CT are no different from those during the
existing CT.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility [of a]
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change the design, configuration,
or method of operation of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind
of equipment will be installed).
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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change permit[s] the extension of CTs provided risk
is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC[-]approved RICT
Program. The proposed change implements a risk-informed
configuration management program to assure that adequate margins of
safety are maintained. Application of these new specifications and
the configuration management program considers cumulative effects of
multiple systems or components being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS.
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
requested amendment involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14254A371.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
the Combined Licenses by clarifying the position on design diversity,
specifically human diversity, as related to the Component Interface
Module (CIM) and Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design.
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 requested amendment proposes changes to licensing basis
documents to clarify the position on the human diversity aspects of
design diversity as related to the Component Interface Module (CIM)
and Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design processes. A review
confirmed that the clarified position on human diversity would not
change the CIM or DAS design. The requested changes to information
presented in the Tier 2* and Tier 2 supporting documentation clarify
the level of human diversity applied. The change continues to comply
with the regulatory guidance in NUREG/CR-6303 regarding credible
defenses against a postulated Common Cause Failure (CCF) of the
Plant Monitoring and Safety System. The proposed change does not
affect the plant itself. The change does not affect prevention and
mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles,
or their safety or design analyses. No safety-related structure,
system, or component (SSC) or function is adversely affected. The
change does not involve nor interface with any SSC accident
initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected. This activity will not
allow for a new fission product release path, nor will it result in
a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a new
sequence of events that would result in significant fuel cladding
failures. Because the proposed changes do not change any safety-
related SSC or function credited in the mitigation of an accident,
the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes clarify the position on human diversity and
show that the CIM/DAS diversity meets the regulatory guidance in
NUREG/CR-6303. The clarified descriptions do not affect the plant
itself. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-
related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment whose failure
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product
barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes.
No system or design function or equipment qualification would be
adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the
proposed changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction,
or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related
equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different
[[Page 73112]]
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to information presented in referenced
licensing basis documents clarify the position regarding human
diversity and do not affect the plant itself. The proposed changes
do not adversely affect the design, construction, or operation of
any plant SSCs, including any equipment whose failure could initiate
an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis
is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no
system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be
adversely affected by the changes.
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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 23, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14296A758.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
the Combined Licenses (COLs) changing the description and scope of the
Initial Test Program. Because, this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 Design Control Document (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 amendment is related to the conduct of the Initial
Test Program. The proposed changes are made in compliance with the
applicable regulatory guides, are only related to the general
aspects of how the program is executed and do not change any
technical content for preoperational or startup tests. No changes
are made to any design aspect of the plant.
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 amendment is related to the conduct of the Initial
Test Program. The proposed changes are made in compliance with the
applicable regulatory guides, are only related to the general
aspects of how the program is executed and do not change any
technical content for preoperational or startup tests. These changes
do not affect the design or analyzed operation of any system.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is related to the conduct of the Initial
Test Program. The proposed changes are made in compliance with the
applicable regulatory guides, are only related to the general
aspects of how the program is executed and do not change any
technical content for preoperational or startup tests. 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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 16, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14290A139.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4.
The requested amendment proposes changes to revise the VEGP Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), involving Tier 1 and associated
Tier 2 departures to add or delete piping line numbers of existing
piping lines, or updating the functional capability classification of
existing process flow lines.
Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 design control
document (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 COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1 Tables proposed changes involve updating piping line name/number
or functional capability requirements. These changes do not affect
any system design function. Adding or updating information for
existing ASME Section III piping does not involve (i.e., cannot
affect) any accident initiating event or component failure, thus,
the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The maximum allowable leakage rate specified in the
Technical Specifications is unchanged and radiological material
release source terms are not affected, thus, the radiological
releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1 Tables proposed changes to update piping line name/number or
functional capability requirements do not adversely affect the
design or quality of any structure, system, or component. Adding or
updating ASME Section III piping line information for existing
process piping lines to a licensing table does not create a new
fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive
material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
[[Page 73113]]
The COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1 Tables proposed changes involve updating piping line name/number
or functional capability requirements information for new/existing
process piping lines. Adding or updating the ASME Section III piping
line name/number or functional capability requirements in the tables
would not affect any radioactive material barrier. 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, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
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.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14311A158.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
revises a limited number of Technical Specification Surveillance
Requirements by adding a note or footnote permitting a one-time
extension from a refueling frequency (i.e., at least once per 18
months) to a maximum of 28 months. These surveillance requirements
include (1) manual containment isolation actuation, (2) manual
recirculation actuation and recirculation actuation logic, (3) steam
generator level calibration, (4) visual examination of the high-
efficiency particulate air and charcoal filters in the containment
recirculating air cooling and filtering system, (5) emergency diesel
generators, and (6) residual heat removal system integrity. An
extension is necessary because these tests will expire before the next
refueling outage begins on April 11, 2015.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68487).
Expiration date of individual notice: December 17, 2014 (public
comments); January 17, 2015 (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 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.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: January 28, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated August 28, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related to direct current (DC)
electrical systems as specified in TS Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' LCO 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--
Shutdown,'' and LCO 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters.'' A new ``Battery
Monitoring and Maintenance Program'' is now required under TS Section
5.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs and Manuals.'' These changes
are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-500, Revision 2, ``DC Electrical Rewrite--
Update to TSTF-360.'' The availability of this TS improvement was
announced in the Federal Register on September 1, 2011 (76 FR 54510).
Date of issuance: November 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14254A133; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 30, 2013 (78 FR
25313). The supplemental letter dated 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 November 24, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 73114]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-373, LaSalle County
Station (LSCS), Unit 1, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated February 26, 2014, September 11, 2014 (2 letters), and
October 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the LSCS,
Unit 1, pressure and temperature curves, Figures 3.4.11-1 through
3.4.11-3, in Technical Specification 3.4.11, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits.''
Date of issuance: November 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14288A151; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-11: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45490). The supplemental letters dated September 11, 2014 (2 letters)
and October 14, 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 November 25, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: November 6, 2013, supplemented by
letters dated June 13, 2014, and August 15, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification 3.6.13, Divider Barrier Integrity, Surveillance
Requirement 3.6.13.5 for the divider barrier seal inspection for the
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: November 20, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 324 for Unit 1 and 307 for Unit 2.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The
amendments revise the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79
FR 9496). The supplemental letters dated June 13, 2014, and August 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated July 3, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the reactor
steam dome pressure value specified in technical specification (TS)
2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' from 785 pounds per square
inch gauge (psig) to 686 psig. This change resolves a 10 CFR part 21,
``Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance,'' condition concerning a
potential to momentarily violate the safety limit specified in TS
2.1.1.1 during a pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open)
transient.
Date of issuance: November 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 185. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14281A318; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment
revises the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR
35064). The supplemental letter dated July 3, 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 November 25, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: May 23, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated March 25, June 26, and October 20, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to
reference and allow use of Westinghouse report WCAP-16045-P-A,
``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON'' and
WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data
Methodology,'' to determine core operating limits.
Date of issuance: November 19, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-211; Unit 2-199. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14296A666; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42, and DPR-60: These
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51229). The supplements dated March 25, June 26, and October 20, 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 November 19, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 73115]]
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: July 2, 2013, and revised by letters
dated February 14, and June 20, 2014, and supplemented by letters dated
August 28 and October 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the design of
connections between reinforced concrete and steel plate concrete
composite construction included in the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and changes to the Technical
Report, ``APP-GW-GLR-602, AP1000 Shield Building Design Details for
Select Wall and RC/SC Connections,'' (prepared by Westinghouse Electric
Company and reviewed by the NRC as part of the design certification
rule). This Technical Report is incorporated by reference in the VEGP,
Units 3 and 4 UFSAR.
Date of issuance: November 21, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 26. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14322A275; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78
FR 54287).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 21, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78
FR 54287).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 21, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of December 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-28704 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
