Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 520-532 [2014-30966]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
520
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
[NRC–2014–0279]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; 301–415–1384,
Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
A. Obtaining Information
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 December 11
to December 24, 2014. The last biweekly
notice was published on December 23,
2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
February 5, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 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–2014–0279. 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:
Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0279 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to
this action by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0279.
• 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 in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–
0279 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as entering
the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
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/
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
521
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
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
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
522
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday,
excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they
have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary,
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
the presiding officer subsequently
determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at https://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to
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.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request:
September 2, 2014. A publicly-available
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14261A091.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
or add technical specification (TS)
surveillance requirements (SRs) that
require verification that the Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS), the
Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/
Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, the
Containment Spray (CS) System, and
the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling
(RCIC) System are not rendered
inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification.
The changes are being made to address
the concerns discussed in Generic Letter
2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation
in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray
Systems.’’ The proposed TS changes are
based on NRC-approved TS Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2,
‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas
Accumulation,’’ dated February 21,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a
Notice of Availability for TSTF–523,
Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption
using the consolidated line item
improvement process, in the Federal
Register on January 15, 2014 (79 FR
2700).
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 revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS), the Shutdown
Cooling (SDC), Residual Heat Removal
(RHR), and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling
(RCIC) Systems are not rendered inoperable
due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the
revised verification. Gas accumulation in the
subject systems is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The
proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems
continue to be capable to perform their
assumed safety function and are not rendered
inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus,
the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident.
The proposed change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis and
is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to
manage gas accumulation in order to ensure
the subject systems are capable of performing
their assumed safety functions. The proposed
SRs are more comprehensive than the current
SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of
the safety analysis are protected. The
proposed change does not adversely affect
any current plant safety margins or the
reliability of the equipment assumed in the
safety analysis. Therefore, there are no
changes being made to any safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect
plant safety as a result of the proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff 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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 25,
2013, as supplemented by letters dated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
August 7, 2013, February 13, July 16,
and December 9, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13176A405,
ML13220A008, ML14044A059,
ML14199A101, and ML14343A581,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
This license amendment was originally
noticed in the Federal Register on
March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15148). This no
significant hazards consideration
determination and opportunity for
hearing is being reissued in its entirety
to include additional revisions to the
PNP Site Emergency Plan (SEP).
Specifically, the amendment would
modify staffing of the radiation
protection (RP) technicians, increase
certain Emergency Response
Organization (ERO) positions with 30minute staff augmentation response
times to 60-minute response times, and
would add monitoring teams as
augmented responders.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect
previously analyzed event probabilities or
any parameters associated with plant
operations. The changes affect the site
response to radiological emergencies under
the PNP SEP. The effect of the proposed
changes on the ability of the ERO to responds
adequately to radiological emergencies has
been evaluated, and the proposed changes
would not significantly affect the ability of
the site to perform the required SEP tasks.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no effect on
the plant design or on the normal operation
of the plant, and do not affect how systems
and components are operated under
emergency conditions. The proposed changes
affect the site response to radiological
emergencies under the PNP SEP. The
changes do not significantly affect the ability
of the site to respond to radiological
emergencies and perform required ERO
functions, and do not affect the plant
operating procedures which are performed by
plant staff during plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
523
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect plant
design, method of plant operation, or any
protective boundaries. 10 CFR 50.47(b) and
10 CFR 50 Appendix E establish emergency
planning standards and requirements for
adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of
key functional areas and critical tasks, and
timely augmentation of the response
capability. Since the PNP SEP was originally
developed, there have been improvements in
the technology used to support the SEP
functions and the capabilities of onsite
personnel. The proposed changes do not
significantly affect the ability of the ERO to
perform required SEP tasks. Thus, the
proposed change does not adversely affect
the ability to meet the emergency planning
standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47(b)
and the requirements in 10 CFR 50 Appendix
E.
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: Mr. William
Dennis, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440
Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request:
November 12, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14316A370.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would approve the
licensee’s equivalent margin analysis,
performed in accordance with Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) 50, Appendix G, which
demonstrates that materials predicted to
possess Charpy upper shelf energy
values less than 50 ft-lbs will provide
margins of safety against fracture,
equivalent to those required by
Appendix G of Section XI of the
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code.
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:
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
524
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This amendment request is for approval of
an equivalent margins analysis (EMA) in
accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G,
Section IV, ‘‘Fracture Toughness
Requirements.’’ The EMA is to demonstrate
that reactor vessel beltline material predicted
to possess Charpy Upper Shelf Energy (USE)
values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins
of safety against fracture equivalent to those
required by Appendix G of Section XI of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
The EMA does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident, and does not result in
physical alteration of a plant structure,
system or component (SSC) or installation of
new or different types of equipment. The
EMA does not affect plant operation or any
design function. The EMA verifies the
capability of a [SSC] to perform a design
function. Further, the EMA does not
significantly affect the probability of
accidents previously evaluated in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR), or cause a change to any of the
does analyses associated with the UFSAR
accidents because accident mitigation
functions would remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different type of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment request is for approval of
an EMA in accordance with 10 CFR 50
Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to
demonstrate that reactor vessel beltline
material predicted to possess Charpy USE
values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins
of safety against fracture equivalent to those
required by Appendix G of Section XI of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The
EMA does not change the design function,
operation, or integrity of the reactor vessel,
and does not challenge the performance or
integrity of any safety-related systems. No
physical plant alterations are made as a result
of the proposed change. The EMA will not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident due to credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design and
licensing basis.
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 amendment request is for approval of
an EMA in accordance with 10 CFR 50
Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to
demonstrate that reactor vessel beltline
material predicted to possess Charpy USE
values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
of safety against fracture equivalent to those
required by Appendix G of Section XI of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. As
such, there is no significant reduction in the
margin of safety as a result of the EMA. No
design bases or safety limits are exceeded or
altered due to the EMA. The margin of safety
associated with the acceptance criteria of
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR
is unchanged. The proposed change has no
effect on the availability, operability, or
performance of the safety-related systems and
components.
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: Mr. William
Dennis, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440
Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1,
Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request:
November 21, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14330A246.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications for reactor
coolant system (RCS) heatup, cooldown,
and inservice leak hydrostatic test
pressure/temperature (P/T) limitations,
as well as the setpoints for the low
temperature overpressure protection
(LTOP) system, to reflect unit operation
to a maximum of 54 effective full power
years (EFPYs). The current limits are
applicable up to 31 EFPYs.
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 will revise the
heatup, cooldown, and inservice leak
hydrostatic test limitations for the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) to a maximum of 54
Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) in
accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G.
This is the end of the period of extended
operation. Further, the proposed amendment
revises the enable temperature and the lift
setpoint for Low Temperature
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Overpressurization Protection (LTOP)
requirements to reflect the revised P/T limits
of the reactor vessel. The P/T limits were
developed in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix G,
utilizing the analytical methods and flaw
acceptance criteria of Topical Report BAW–
10046A, Revision 2, and American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) [Boiler and
Pressure Vessel] Code, Section XI, Appendix
G. These methods and criteria are the
previously NRC approved standards for the
preparation of P/T limits. Updating the P/T
limits for additional EFPYs maintains the
level of assurance that reactor coolant
pressure boundary integrity will be
maintained, as specified in 10 CFR 50,
Appendix G.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and
do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the plant or
the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained. The ability of structures,
systems, and components to perform their
intended safety functions is not altered or
prevented by the proposed changes, and the
assumptions used in determining the
radiological consequences of previously
evaluated accidents are not affected.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes incorporate
methodologies that either have been
approved or accepted for use by the NRC
(provided that any conditions/limitations are
satisfied). The P/T limits and LTOP limits
will provide the same level of protection to
the reactor coolant pressure boundary as was
previously evaluated. Reactor coolant
pressure boundary integrity will continue to
be maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 50,
Appendix G, and the assumed accident
performance of plant structures, systems and
components will not be affected. These
changes do not involve any physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed),
and installed equipment is not being
operated in a new or different manner. Thus,
no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the
function of the reactor coolant pressure
boundary or its response during plant
transients. By calculating the P/T limits and
associated LTOP limits using NRC-approved
methodology, adequate margins of safety
relating to reactor coolant pressure boundary
integrity are maintained. The proposed
changes do not alter the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety system settings,
or limiting conditions for operation are
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
determined. These changes will ensure that
protective actions are initiated and the
operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation
are not affected.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 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 Counsel—
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R.
Oesterle.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request:
September 24, 2014, as supplemented
by letter dated December 11, 2014.
Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML14273A012 and ML14349A645,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
change the Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications (TSs). The
proposed changes will revise License
Condition 2.K and delete the functional
unit ‘‘Cold Leg Injection, P–15’’ from TS
3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Features
Actuation System Instrumentation.’’
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, along with NRC edits in
square brackets, 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 deletes from the TS
functional unit 10.d ‘‘Cold Leg Injection, P–
15,’’ which would prevent opening of the
high-head safety injection valves until reactor
coolant system pressure decreases below the
P–15 setpoint. This feature has not been
installed in the plant, and the TS
requirements for permissive P–15 have not
been implemented. Eliminating a feature that
has not been implemented in the plant is not
an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed change
has no impact on equipment required to be
operable for accident mitigation;
consequently, the change does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
significantly increase the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. No new accident scenarios,
failure mechanisms, or limiting single
failures are introduced as a result of the
proposed change because no physical
changes are made to the plant. Therefore, the
proposed change to the TS does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated[.]
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ability of any operable SSC [structure,
system or component] to perform its
designated safety function is unaffected by
the proposed change. The proposed change
does not alter any safety analyses
assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, or method of operating the
plant. The change does not adversely impact
plant operating margins or the reliability of
equipment credited in the safety analyses.
The Seabrook analysis for inadvertent
operation of the emergency core cooling
system credits operator to terminate safety
injection flow. The addition of permissive P–
15 to the plant design and TS was initiated
to increase the time available for the
operators to terminate an inadvertent safety
injection actuation. However, the amendment
is still within the implementation period and
the TS change and associated design change
have not been implemented. Currently,
without the P–15 function, the operators are
capable of terminating safety injection flow
within the assumed time limits, and
performance meets Seabrook’s administrative
limit for completing time critical actions
within 80% of the required time.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair,
Managing Attorney, Florida Power &
Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October
30, 2013. A publicly-available version is
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
525
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14303A448.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF–93 and
NPF–94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by
departing from the plant-specific Design
Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 (and
corresponding Combined License
Appendix C information) and Tier 2
material by making changes to specify
the use of latching control relays in lieu
of breakers to open the control rod drive
mechanism (CRDM) motor generator
(MG) set generator field on a diverse
actuation system (DAS) signal.
Because, this proposed change
requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the
licensee also requested an exemption
from the requirements of the Generic
DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to use field control
relays in lieu of field circuit breakers to deenergize the CRDM MG Set excitation field
does not result in a change to the basic MG
Set design function, which is to supply
reliable electrical power to the CRDMs while
providing a trip function on a DAS signal,
allowing the control rods to drop. The
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is not
adversely affected. 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 UFSAR [Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report] are not
affected. Because the change maintains the
CRDM MG set trip function used to mitigate
an accident, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, there is no 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.
There is no safety-related SSC or function
adversely affected by this proposed change to
use control relays instead of breakers to deenergize the CRDM MG set generator field on
demand. This proposed change does not
change any equipment qualification or
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
526
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
fission product barrier. The change does not
result in a new failure mode, malfunction or
sequence of events that could affect safety or
safety-related equipment. This activity will
not allow for a new fission product release
path, result in a new fission product barrier
failure mode, or create a new sequence of
events that would result in significant fuel
cladding failures.
Therefore, this activity 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.
There is no safety-related SSC or function
adversely affected by this proposed change to
use relays instead of breakers to control the
CRDM MG set generator field. The function
to trip the MG set generator field on a DAS
signal, allowing the control rods to drop, is
not adversely affected by the use of relays as
the device to de-energize the generator field.
The proposed change does not affect any
safety-related design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the requested
change, thus, no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD 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
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
September 18, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14261A360.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed license amendment
would depart from VCSNS Units 2 and
3 plant-specific Design Control
Document (DCD) Tier 2* material
contained within the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by
relocating fire area rated fire barriers
due to changes to the layout of the
switchgear rooms and office area in the
turbine building.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 reconfiguration of the
turbine building switchgear rooms, the
control system cabinet room, the new
electrical equipment room, and the
associated heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) room would not
adversely affect any safety-related equipment
or function. The modified configuration will
maintain the fire protection function (i.e.,
barrier) as evaluated in Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix 9A,
thus, the probability of a spread of a fire from
these areas is not significantly increased. The
safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected,
and the fire protection analysis results are
not adversely affected. The proposed changes
affect nonsafety-related electrical switchgear
and do not involve any accident, initiating
event, or component failure; thus, the
probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated are not affected. The proposed
changes do not interface with or affect any
system containing radioactivity or affect any
radiological material release source terms;
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 proposed changes to the fire zones in
the turbine building related to the turbine
building switchgear rooms, the control
system cabinet room, the new electrical
equipment room, the associated HVAC room,
and stairway will maintain the fire barrier
fire protection function as evaluated in the
UFSAR Appendix 9A. The changes to the fire
areas and fire zones do not affect the function
of any safety-related structure, system, or
component, and thus, do not introduce a new
failure mode. The affected turbine building
areas and equipment do not interface with
any safety-related equipment or any
equipment associated with radioactive
material and, thus, do not create a new fault
or sequence of events that could result in a
new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed reconfiguration of the fire
zones associated with the turbine building
switchgear rooms, the electrical equipment
room, and the associated HVAC room will
maintain the fire barrier fire protection
function as evaluated in the UFSAR
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Appendix 9A. The fire barriers and
equipment in the turbine building do not
interface with any safety-related equipment
or affect any safety-related function. The
changes to the area barriers associated with
the turbine building switchgear and
associated HVAC continue to comply with
the existing design codes and regulatory
criteria, and do not affect any safety analysis.
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 California Edison Company
(SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50–206, 50–
361, 50–362, and 72–041, San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),
Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation, San Diego
County, California
Date of amendment request: March
31, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated October 21, 2014. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14092A249 and
ML14297A016, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify the SONGS facility operating
license by revising the emergency action
level (EAL) scheme consistent with the
SONGS permanent shutdown and
defueled status. On June 12, 2013, SCE
submitted a certification of permanent
cessation of power operations pursuant
to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE
had decided to permanently cease
power operation of SONGS effective
June 7, 2013. With the docketing of
subsequent certifications for permanent
removal of fuel from the reactor vessels
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on
June 28, 2013, and July 22, 2013, for
Units 3 and 2, respectively, the 10 CFR
part 50 license for SONGS Units 2 and
3 no longer authorizes operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified
in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS Unit 1
was permanently shut down in 1993
and is in the decommissioning phase.
The proposed changes to the EAL
scheme are being submitted to the NRC
for approval prior to implementation, as
required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section
IV.B.2.
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.]
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) Units 2 and 3 have permanently
ceased operation. The proposed amendment
would replace the existing EAL scheme with
an EAL scheme that reflects the permanently
shut-down status of the plant. The proposed
Emergency Action Level Scheme is based on
NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 99–01,
Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’
Appendix C for permanently defueled
stations. The proposed amendment has no
effect on structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) and no effect on the
capability of any plant SSC to perform its
design function. The proposed amendment
would not increase the likelihood of the
malfunction of any plant SSC.
The spent fuel pool and its support
systems are used for spent fuel storage. It is
expected that SONGS will remain in a wet
fuel storage configuration for approximately
five years. In this condition, the spectrum of
postulated accidents is much smaller than for
an operational plant. As a result of the
certifications submitted by SCE in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the
consequent removal of authorization to
operate the reactor or to place or retain fuel
in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios
postulated in the SONGS Final Safety
Analysis Report are no longer possible, and
there is no significant increase in
consequences of previously postulated
accidents.
The proposed license amendment will not
significantly increase the probability of
occurrence of previously evaluated accidents,
since most previously analyzed accidents can
no longer occur and the probability or
consequences of the few remaining are
unaffected by the proposed amendment.
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 does not involve
any change in the plant’s design,
configuration, or operation. The proposed
changes have no impact on facility SSCs
affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or
in the methods of operation of such SSCs, or
on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel
itself. The proposed EAL scheme is for the
plant’s defueled condition. There is no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or
mitigation of accidents previously evaluated.
Accidents cannot result in different or more
adverse failure modes or accidents than those
previously evaluated because the reactors are
permanently shut down and defueled and
SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the
reactors.
The proposed EAL scheme does not make
changes to the systems credited in the
remaining relevant accident analyses. No
changes are being made to parameters within
which the plant is normally operated or in
the setpoints which initiate protective or
mitigating actions, and no new failure modes
are being introduced or new accident
precursors that could initiate a new or
different kind of accident. Proper control and
monitoring of safety significant parameters
and activities such as dose assessments to
determine any radiological releases and
provisions for communications and
coordination with offsite organizations will
be maintained.
The proposed amendment does not
introduce a new mode of plant operation or
new accident precursors, does not involve
any physical alterations to plant
configuration, or make changes to system
setpoints that could initiate a new or
different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
[Response: No.]
The proposed amendment to the EAL
scheme will provide thresholds for initiation
of Emergency Planning actions that are
commensurate with the permanently
defueled condition of the station. The
proposed amendment does not involve a
change in the plant’s design, configuration,
or operation. The proposed amendment does
not affect either the way in which the plant
SSCs perform their safety function or its
design and licensing bases.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for
SONGS no longer authorize operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel
into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation is
no longer possible. The proposed amendment
does not adversely affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis
analyses that impact the applicable
postulated accidents.
The proposed changes to the SONGS EAL
scheme do not impact the safe storage of
irradiated fuel. The revised scheme does not
affect any requirements for SSCs credited in
the remaining analyses of applicable
postulated accidents; and as such, does not
significantly reduce the margin of safety
associated with these accident analyses.
Postulated design basis accidents involving
the reactor are no longer possible because the
reactor is permanently shut down and
defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized
to operate the reactors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
527
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Walker A.
Matthews, Esquire, Southern California
Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove
Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3
and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request:
November 21, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14325A835.
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 Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (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
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
528
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments:
January 28, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.12. Specifically,
the change removes a reference to
Condition E when entering Condition G.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: This license
amendment is effective as of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—275 and
Unit 2—255. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14332A790; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
revised the licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18330).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 11,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: May 28,
2013, as supplemented by letter dated
May 8, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core
SLs [Safety Limits],’’ to reduce the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reactor dome pressure from 785 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig) to 685 psig.
These changes resolve a calculational
defect reported under 10 CFR part 21
concerning a potential to momentarily
violate the reactor safety limits in TSs
2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a Pressure
Regulator Failure-Open transient as
reported by General Electric Nuclear
Energy.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented 60
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 182. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14192A831;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47788).
The supplemental letter dated May 8,
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 December 11,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request:
November 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Sections 3.6.4.3,
‘‘Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,’’
3.6.4.7, ‘‘Fuel Building Ventilation
System—Fuel Handling,’’ 3.7.2,
‘‘Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA)
System,’’ and 5.5.7, ‘‘Ventilation Filter
Testing Program (VFTP).’’ Specifically,
the amendment eliminates the
operability and Surveillance
Requirements for the heaters in the
safety-related charcoal filter trains in
those systems, and revises certain
charcoal test specifications.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented 60
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 183. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
Accession No. ML14225A444;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12243).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 12,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS),
West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: February
25, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment approved a change to the
facility operating license for RBS. The
change revised the date for
implementation of Milestone 8 of the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule and the
existing license conditions in the
facility operating license. Milestone 8 of
the CSP implementation schedule
concerns the full implementation of the
CSP.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented 60
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 184. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14304A181;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38576).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 12,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247 and 50–
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January
30, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated June 12, 2014.
Brief description of amendment): The
amendments revised the Cyber Security
Plan Milestone 8 full implementation
date and the existing Physical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
Protection license conditions by
extending the full implementation date
to June 30, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 57, 279, and 254. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14316A526;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
5, DPR–26, and DPR–64: The
amendment revised the Provisional
Operating License for Unit No. 1 and the
Facility Operating Licenses for Unit
Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25899).
The supplemental letter dated June 12,
2014, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff’s original proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 11,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (Pilgrim), Plymouth
County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: January
31, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated July 1, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Pilgrim
operating license by modifying the
Physical Protection license condition,
related to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP).
The CSP Milestone 8 full
implementation date was changed from
December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 241. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14336A661;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–35: The amendment revised
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45487).
The supplemental letter dated July 1,
2014, provided additional information
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
529
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff’s original proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 11,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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: October
31, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated April 24, 2014, July 16, 2014, and
December 5, 2014.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment revised and removed
certain requirements from the Section
6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ portions
of the Vermont Yankee Technical
Specifications that are no longer
applicable to the facility in a
permanently defueled condition.
Date of Issuance: December 22, 2014.
Effective date: The license
amendment becomes effective upon the
licensee’s submittal of the certifications
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and
(ii).
Amendment No.: 260. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14217A072;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
28: Amendment revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 19, 2014 (79 FR
9494). The supplemental letters dated
April 24, July 16, and December 5, 2014,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff’s original proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of this amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 22,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: August 4,
2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment approved a change to the
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
530
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
facility operating license for Waterford
Steam Electric Station, Unit 3. The
change revised the date for
implementation of Milestone 8 of the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule and the
existing license conditions in the
facility operating license. Milestone 8 of
the CSP implementation schedule
concerns the full implementation of the
CSP.
Date of issuance: December 10, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented 60
days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 241. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14321A713;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
38: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR
60518).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 10,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment:
December 19, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 11, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment approved a change to the
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1
facility operating license to revise the
date for implementation of Milestone 8
of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule and the
existing license conditions in the
facility operating license. Milestone 8 of
the CSP implementation schedule
concerns the full implementation of the
CSP.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 200. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14311A479;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
29: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38576).
The supplemental letter dated June 11,
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 December 12,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352, 50–353, and 72–65,
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and
2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
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 December 24,
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: January
10, 2014, as supplemented by letter
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., dated May 27, 2014.
Docket Nos. 50–219 and 72–15, Oyster
Brief description of amendments: The
Creek Nuclear Generating Station,
amendments revised the schedule for
Ocean County, New Jersey
full implementation of the cyber
security plan (CSP) and Paragraph 2.D
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–171, of Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74 for CNP,
50–277, 50–278, and 72–29, Peach
Units 1 and 2, respectively. The CSP
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1,
and associated implementation
2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties,
schedule for CNP, Units 1 and 2 was
Pennsylvania
previously approved by NRC staff letter
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
dated July 28, 2011, as supplemented by
Docket Nos. 50–289 and 50–320, Three
changes approved in a letter dated
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and December 13, 2012
2, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of issuance: December 18, 2014.
Date of application for amendments:
Effective date: As of the date of
October 30, 2013, as supplemented by
issuance and shall be implemented
letter dated June 13, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 325 and 308. A
amendments revised the Emergency
Plan definition of Annual Training from publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14317A551;
‘‘Retraining is performed on an annual
documents related to this amendment
basis, which is defined as every 12are listed in the Safety Evaluation
months + 3 months (25% grace
enclosed with the amendment.
period),’’ to ‘‘Retraining is performed
Renewed Facility Operating License
once per year not to exceed 18-months
Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: Amendments
between training sessions.’’
Date of issuance: December 24, 2014.
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Effective date: As of the date of
Licenses.
issuance and shall be implemented
Date of initial notice in Federal
within 90 days from the date of
Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38579).
issuance.
The supplemental letter dated May 27,
Amendment Nos.: 212, 173, 283, 12,
2014, provided additional information
294, 297, and 283. A publicly-available
that clarified the application, did not
version is in ADAMS under Accession
expand the scope of the application as
No. ML14226A940; documents related
originally noticed, and did not change
to these amendments are listed in the
the staff’s original proposed no
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
significant hazards consideration
amendments.
determination as published in the
Renewed Facility Operating License
Federal Register.
Nos. NPF–39, NPF–85, DPR–16, DPR–12,
The Commission’s related evaluation
DPR–44, DPR–56, DPR–50, and DPR–73:
The amendments revised the Emergency of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 18,
Plan.
2014.
Date of initial notice in Federal
No significant hazards consideration
Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18333).
comments received: No.
The supplemental letter dated June 13,
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station
(CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March
14, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated July 28, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the CNS Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the
CSP Implementation Schedule. The
amendment also revised the physical
protection license condition in the
renewed facility operating license.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 249. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14323A644;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–46: Amendment revised the
renewed facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38580).
The supplemental letter dated July 28,
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 December 12,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March
31, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification 2.5, ‘‘Steam and
Feedwater Systems,’’ to allow a 7-day
completion time for restoration of the
turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater
pump if it becomes inoperable following
a refueling outage and if Mode 2 has not
yet been entered, based on Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–340, Revision 3.
Date of issuance: December 22, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 278. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
Accession No. ML14328A814;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–40: The amendment revised
the license and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38592).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
safety evaluation dated December 22,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request:
September 5, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment relocates the operability
and surveillance requirements for flood
protection from the Technical
Specifications to the Technical
Requirements Manual.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 196. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14108A399;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–57: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21299).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 18,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354,
50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request:
December 24, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated June 23, 2014, and August
18, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments revised the Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8
full implementation date, as set forth in
the CSP implementation schedule and
the existing License Condition 2.E in the
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
NPF–57, DPR–70, and DPR–75.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
531
Date of issuance: December 23, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 197, 306, and 288.
A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14323A974; documents related to
this amendment are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–57, DPR–70, and DPR–75:
Amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 9, 2014 (79 FR
53461). The supplemental letters dated
June 23, 2014, and August 18, 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 December 23,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
December 4, 2013 and September 8,
2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised various technical
specifications (TS) to upgrade the
VCSNS TS to improve operator usability
by more closely aligning the TS with the
latest form and content of standard TS.
Date of issuance: November 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 20. A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14265A072;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18334).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 12,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
532
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 2015 / Notices
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation,
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50–
321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling
County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments:
January 16, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated May 2 and July 22, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.7.5, Control Room Air
Conditioning System, to provide new
Required Actions (RAs) for one, two, or
three main control room AC subsystems
inoperable, and make other required
corresponding changes.
Date of issuance: December 10, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—270 and
Unit 2—214. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14279A261; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments
revised the licenses and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR
49110). The supplemental letter dated
May 2 and July 22, 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 December 10,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation,
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50–
321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling
County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments:
December 21, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated June 21, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Operating Licenses to incorporate a
degraded voltage protection
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:38 Jan 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
modification schedule into the Hatch
licenses.
Date of issuance: December 16, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—271 and
Unit 2—215. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14328A323; documents related
to this these amendments are listed in
the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: Amendments
revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR
54289).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 16,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day
of December 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014–30966 Filed 1–5–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0262]
Applications and Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses Involving
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Considerations and Containing
Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and Order Imposing
Procedures for Access to Sensitive
Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: License amendment request;
opportunity to comment, request a
hearing, and petition for leave to
intervene; order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) received and is
considering approval of four
amendment requests. The amendment
requests are for Turkey Point Nuclear
Generating, Units 3 and 4; Duane
Arnold Energy Center; Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Edwin
I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2. The NRC
proposes to determine that each
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration. In
addition, each amendment request
contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI).
DATES: Comments must be filed by
February 5, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 9, 2015.
Any potential party as defined in § 2.4
of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), who believes
access to SUNSI is necessary to respond
to this notice must request document
access by January 16, 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–2014–0262. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–287–3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
3WFN–06–A44M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–
0262 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–2014–0262.
• 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
E:\FR\FM\06JAN1.SGM
06JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 520-532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30966]
[[Page 520]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0279]
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 December 11 to December 24, 2014. The last
biweekly notice was published on December 23, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 5, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 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-2014-0279. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; 301-415-1384, Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0279 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may
obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0279.
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 in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a
document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0279 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
[[Page 521]]
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 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
[[Page 522]]
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.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 2, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14261A091.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise or add technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System
(ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System,
the Containment Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Isolation
Cooling (RCIC) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated
gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. The changes are being made to address the concerns
discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in
Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray
Systems.'' The proposed TS changes are based on NRC-approved TS Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01,
Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13053A075). The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for
TSTF-523, Revision 2, for plant-specific adoption using the
consolidated line item improvement process, in the Federal Register on
January 15, 2014 (79 FR 2700).
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 revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), the
Shutdown Cooling (SDC), Residual Heat Removal (RHR), and the Reactor
Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Systems are not rendered inoperable
due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the
subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure
that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their
assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas
accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of
[[Page 523]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the RHR, SDC, and the RCIC Systems are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff 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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated August 7, 2013, February 13, July 16, and December 9,
2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML13176A405, ML13220A008, ML14044A059, ML14199A101, and ML14343A581,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: This license amendment was
originally noticed in the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15148). This no significant hazards consideration determination and
opportunity for hearing is being reissued in its entirety to include
additional revisions to the PNP Site Emergency Plan (SEP).
Specifically, the amendment would modify staffing of the radiation
protection (RP) technicians, increase certain Emergency Response
Organization (ERO) positions with 30-minute staff augmentation response
times to 60-minute response times, and would add monitoring teams as
augmented responders.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect previously analyzed event
probabilities or any parameters associated with plant operations.
The changes affect the site response to radiological emergencies
under the PNP SEP. The effect of the proposed changes on the ability
of the ERO to responds adequately to radiological emergencies has
been evaluated, and the proposed changes would not significantly
affect the ability of the site to perform the required SEP tasks.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no effect on the plant design or on
the normal operation of the plant, and do not affect how systems and
components are operated under emergency conditions. The proposed
changes affect the site response to radiological emergencies under
the PNP SEP. The changes do not significantly affect the ability of
the site to respond to radiological emergencies and perform required
ERO functions, and do not affect the plant operating procedures
which are performed by plant staff during plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect plant design, method of
plant operation, or any protective boundaries. 10 CFR 50.47(b) and
10 CFR 50 Appendix E establish emergency planning standards and
requirements for adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of key
functional areas and critical tasks, and timely augmentation of the
response capability. Since the PNP SEP was originally developed,
there have been improvements in the technology used to support the
SEP functions and the capabilities of onsite personnel. The proposed
changes do not significantly affect the ability of the ERO to
perform required SEP tasks. Thus, the proposed change does not
adversely affect the ability to meet the emergency planning
standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in 10
CFR 50 Appendix E.
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: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: November 12, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14316A370.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would approve the
licensee's equivalent margin analysis, performed in accordance with
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50, Appendix G,
which demonstrates that materials predicted to possess Charpy upper
shelf energy values less than 50 ft-lbs will provide margins of safety
against fracture, equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section
XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code.
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:
[[Page 524]]
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This amendment request is for approval of an equivalent margins
analysis (EMA) in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, Section IV,
``Fracture Toughness Requirements.'' The EMA is to demonstrate that
reactor vessel beltline material predicted to possess Charpy Upper
Shelf Energy (USE) values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins of
safety against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G
of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
The EMA does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident, and does not result in
physical alteration of a plant structure, system or component (SSC)
or installation of new or different types of equipment. The EMA does
not affect plant operation or any design function. The EMA verifies
the capability of a [SSC] to perform a design function. Further, the
EMA does not significantly affect the probability of accidents
previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR), or cause a change to any of the does analyses associated
with the UFSAR accidents because accident mitigation functions would
remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The amendment request is for approval of an EMA in accordance
with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to demonstrate
that reactor vessel beltline material predicted to possess Charpy
USE values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins of safety against
fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI of
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The EMA does not change
the design function, operation, or integrity of the reactor vessel,
and does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related systems. No physical plant alterations are made as a result
of the proposed change. The EMA will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident due to credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and licensing basis.
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 amendment request is for approval of an EMA in accordance
with 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, Section IV. The EMA is to demonstrate
that reactor vessel beltline material predicted to possess Charpy
USE values less than 50 ft-lb will provide margins of safety against
fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of Section XI of
the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. As such, there is no
significant reduction in the margin of safety as a result of the
EMA. No design bases or safety limits are exceeded or altered due to
the EMA. The margin of safety associated with the acceptance
criteria of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR is
unchanged. The proposed change has no effect on the availability,
operability, or performance of the safety-related systems and
components.
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: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General
Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White
Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14330A246.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications for reactor coolant system (RCS) heatup,
cooldown, and inservice leak hydrostatic test pressure/temperature (P/
T) limitations, as well as the setpoints for the low temperature
overpressure protection (LTOP) system, to reflect unit operation to a
maximum of 54 effective full power years (EFPYs). The current limits
are applicable up to 31 EFPYs.
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 will revise the heatup, cooldown, and
inservice leak hydrostatic test limitations for the Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) to a maximum of 54 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) in
accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G. This is the end of the period
of extended operation. Further, the proposed amendment revises the
enable temperature and the lift setpoint for Low Temperature
Overpressurization Protection (LTOP) requirements to reflect the
revised P/T limits of the reactor vessel. The P/T limits were
developed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix
G, utilizing the analytical methods and flaw acceptance criteria of
Topical Report BAW-10046A, Revision 2, and American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) [Boiler and Pressure Vessel] Code,
Section XI, Appendix G. These methods and criteria are the
previously NRC approved standards for the preparation of P/T limits.
Updating the P/T limits for additional EFPYs maintains the level of
assurance that reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity will be
maintained, as specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes incorporate methodologies that either have
been approved or accepted for use by the NRC (provided that any
conditions/limitations are satisfied). The P/T limits and LTOP
limits will provide the same level of protection to the reactor
coolant pressure boundary as was previously evaluated. Reactor
coolant pressure boundary integrity will continue to be maintained
in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, and the assumed accident
performance of plant structures, systems and components will not be
affected. These changes do not involve any physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), and installed equipment is not being operated in a new
or different manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the function of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients.
By calculating the P/T limits and associated LTOP limits using NRC-
approved methodology, adequate margins of safety relating to reactor
coolant pressure boundary integrity are maintained. The proposed
changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are
[[Page 525]]
determined. These changes will ensure that protective actions are
initiated and the operability requirements for equipment assumed to
operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 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
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: September 24, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated December 11, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14273A012 and ML14349A645, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications
(TSs). The proposed changes will revise License Condition 2.K and
delete the functional unit ``Cold Leg Injection, P-15'' from TS 3.3.2,
``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation.''
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, along with NRC edits in square brackets, 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 deletes from the TS functional unit 10.d
``Cold Leg Injection, P-15,'' which would prevent opening of the
high-head safety injection valves until reactor coolant system
pressure decreases below the P-15 setpoint. This feature has not
been installed in the plant, and the TS requirements for permissive
P-15 have not been implemented. Eliminating a feature that has not
been implemented in the plant is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed
change has no impact on equipment required to be operable for
accident mitigation; consequently, the change does not significantly
increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures
are introduced as a result of the proposed change because no
physical changes are made to the plant. Therefore, the proposed
change to the TS does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated[.]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ability of any operable SSC [structure, system or component]
to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the
proposed change. The proposed change does not alter any safety
analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, or method of operating the plant. The change does not
adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of
equipment credited in the safety analyses.
The Seabrook analysis for inadvertent operation of the emergency
core cooling system credits operator to terminate safety injection
flow. The addition of permissive P-15 to the plant design and TS was
initiated to increase the time available for the operators to
terminate an inadvertent safety injection actuation. However, the
amendment is still within the implementation period and the TS
change and associated design change have not been implemented.
Currently, without the P-15 function, the operators are capable of
terminating safety injection flow within the assumed time limits,
and performance meets Seabrook's administrative limit for completing
time critical actions within 80% of the required time.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney, Florida
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena Khanna.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14303A448.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by
departing from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1
(and corresponding Combined License Appendix C information) and Tier 2
material by making changes to specify the use of latching control
relays in lieu of breakers to open the control rod drive mechanism
(CRDM) motor generator (MG) set generator field on a diverse actuation
system (DAS) signal.
Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee
also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD
Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to use field control relays in lieu of field
circuit breakers to de-energize the CRDM MG Set excitation field
does not result in a change to the basic MG Set design function,
which is to supply reliable electrical power to the CRDMs while
providing a trip function on a DAS signal, allowing the control rods
to drop. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is not adversely
affected. 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 UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] are not affected.
Because the change maintains the CRDM MG set trip function used to
mitigate an accident, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in
the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, there is no 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.
There is no safety-related SSC or function adversely affected by
this proposed change to use control relays instead of breakers to
de-energize the CRDM MG set generator field on demand. This proposed
change does not change any equipment qualification or
[[Page 526]]
fission product barrier. The change does not result in a new failure
mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or
safety-related equipment. This activity will not allow for a new
fission product release path, result in a new fission product
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would
result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, this activity 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.
There is no safety-related SSC or function adversely affected by
this proposed change to use relays instead of breakers to control
the CRDM MG set generator field. The function to trip the MG set
generator field on a DAS signal, allowing the control rods to drop,
is not adversely affected by the use of relays as the device to de-
energize the generator field. The proposed change does not affect
any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety
analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the requested change, 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.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14261A360.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
would depart from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific Design Control
Document (DCD) Tier 2* material contained within the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by relocating fire area rated fire
barriers due to changes to the layout of the switchgear rooms and
office area in the turbine building.
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 reconfiguration of the turbine building switchgear
rooms, the control system cabinet room, the new electrical equipment
room, and the associated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) room would not adversely affect any safety-related equipment
or function. The modified configuration will maintain the fire
protection function (i.e., barrier) as evaluated in Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix 9A, thus, the probability of
a spread of a fire from these areas is not significantly increased.
The safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire
protection analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed
changes affect nonsafety-related electrical switchgear and do not
involve any accident, initiating event, or component failure; thus,
the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The proposed changes do not interface with or affect any
system containing radioactivity or affect any radiological material
release source terms; 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 proposed changes to the fire zones in the turbine building
related to the turbine building switchgear rooms, the control system
cabinet room, the new electrical equipment room, the associated HVAC
room, and stairway will maintain the fire barrier fire protection
function as evaluated in the UFSAR Appendix 9A. The changes to the
fire areas and fire zones do not affect the function of any safety-
related structure, system, or component, and thus, do not introduce
a new failure mode. The affected turbine building areas and
equipment do not interface with any safety-related equipment or any
equipment associated with radioactive material and, thus, do not
create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed reconfiguration of the fire zones associated with
the turbine building switchgear rooms, the electrical equipment
room, and the associated HVAC room will maintain the fire barrier
fire protection function as evaluated in the UFSAR Appendix 9A. The
fire barriers and equipment in the turbine building do not interface
with any safety-related equipment or affect any safety-related
function. The changes to the area barriers associated with the
turbine building switchgear and associated HVAC continue to comply
with the existing design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not
affect any safety analysis.
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 California Edison Company (SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50-206,
50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation, San Diego County, California
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated October 21, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14092A249 and ML14297A016, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the SONGS facility operating license by revising the emergency
action level (EAL) scheme consistent with the SONGS permanent shutdown
and defueled status. On June 12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification of
permanent cessation of power operations pursuant to 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE had decided to permanently cease power
operation of SONGS effective June 7, 2013. With the docketing of
subsequent certifications for permanent removal of fuel from the
reactor vessels pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013,
and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2, respectively, the 10 CFR part 50
license for SONGS Units 2 and 3 no longer authorizes operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as
specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS Unit 1 was permanently shut down
in 1993 and is in the decommissioning phase. The proposed changes to
the EAL scheme are being submitted to the NRC for approval prior to
implementation, as required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and
[[Page 527]]
10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.B.2.
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.]
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 have
permanently ceased operation. The proposed amendment would replace
the existing EAL scheme with an EAL scheme that reflects the
permanently shut-down status of the plant. The proposed Emergency
Action Level Scheme is based on NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 99-
01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-
Passive Reactors,'' Appendix C for permanently defueled stations.
The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC
to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
The spent fuel pool and its support systems are used for spent
fuel storage. It is expected that SONGS will remain in a wet fuel
storage configuration for approximately five years. In this
condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than
for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications
submitted by SCE in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to
place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the SONGS
Final Safety Analysis Report are no longer possible, and there is no
significant increase in consequences of previously postulated
accidents.
The proposed license amendment will not significantly increase
the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents,
since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the
probability or consequences of the few remaining are unaffected by
the proposed amendment.
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 does not involve any change in the
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes
have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of
irradiated fuel, or in the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on
the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The proposed EAL
scheme is for the plant's defueled condition. There is no impact on
the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of accidents previously
evaluated. Accidents cannot result in different or more adverse
failure modes or accidents than those previously evaluated because
the reactors are permanently shut down and defueled and SONGS is no
longer authorized to operate the reactors.
The proposed EAL scheme does not make changes to the systems
credited in the remaining relevant accident analyses. No changes are
being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated
or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigating actions,
and no new failure modes are being introduced or new accident
precursors that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and
activities such as dose assessments to determine any radiological
releases and provisions for communications and coordination with
offsite organizations will be maintained.
The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical
alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
[Response: No.]
The proposed amendment to the EAL scheme will provide thresholds
for initiation of Emergency Planning actions that are commensurate
with the permanently defueled condition of the station. The proposed
amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design,
configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect
either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety function
or its design and licensing bases.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor
operation is no longer possible. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design
basis analyses that impact the applicable postulated accidents.
The proposed changes to the SONGS EAL scheme do not impact the
safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised scheme does not affect
any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining analyses of
applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not significantly
reduce the margin of safety associated with these accident analyses.
Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no
longer possible because the reactor is permanently shut down and
defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the reactors.
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Walker A. Matthews, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14325A835.
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
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (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
[[Page 528]]
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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: January 28, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.12. Specifically, the change removes a reference
to Condition E when entering Condition G.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--275 and Unit 2--255. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14332A790; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register April 1, 2014 (79 FR
18330).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: May 28, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated May 8, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to
reduce the reactor dome pressure from 785 pounds per square inch gauge
(psig) to 685 psig. These changes resolve a calculational defect
reported under 10 CFR part 21 concerning a potential to momentarily
violate the reactor safety limits in TSs 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a
Pressure Regulator Failure-Open transient as reported by General
Electric Nuclear Energy.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 182. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14192A831; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR
47788). The supplemental letter dated May 8, 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 December 11, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Sections 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT)
System,'' 3.6.4.7, ``Fuel Building Ventilation System--Fuel Handling,''
3.7.2, ``Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA) System,'' and 5.5.7,
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' Specifically, the
amendment eliminates the operability and Surveillance Requirements for
the heaters in the safety-related charcoal filter trains in those
systems, and revises certain charcoal test specifications.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
[[Page 529]]
Accession No. ML14225A444; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR
12243).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to
the facility operating license for RBS. The change revised the date for
implementation of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule and the existing license conditions in the
facility operating license. Milestone 8 of the CSP implementation
schedule concerns the full implementation of the CSP.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 184. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14304A181; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38576).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 12, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247 and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 30, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated June 12, 2014.
Brief description of amendment): The amendments revised the Cyber
Security Plan Milestone 8 full implementation date and the existing
Physical Protection license conditions by extending the full
implementation date to June 30, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 57, 279, and 254. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14316A526; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-5, DPR-26, and DPR-64: The
amendment revised the Provisional Operating License for Unit No. 1 and
the Facility Operating Licenses for Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR
25899). The supplemental letter dated June 12, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (Pilgrim), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated July 1, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Pilgrim
operating license by modifying the Physical Protection license
condition, related to the Cyber Security Plan (CSP). The CSP Milestone
8 full implementation date was changed from December 15, 2014, to June
30, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14336A661; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45487). The supplemental letter dated July 1, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: October 31, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated April 24, 2014, July 16, 2014, and December 5, 2014.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised and removed
certain requirements from the Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls,''
portions of the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications that are no
longer applicable to the facility in a permanently defueled condition.
Date of Issuance: December 22, 2014.
Effective date: The license amendment becomes effective upon the
licensee's submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii).
Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14217A072; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 19, 2014 (79
FR 9494). The supplemental letters dated April 24, July 16, and
December 5, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: August 4, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to
the
[[Page 530]]
facility operating license for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
3. The change revised the date for implementation of Milestone 8 of the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule and the existing
license conditions in the facility operating license. Milestone 8 of
the CSP implementation schedule concerns the full implementation of the
CSP.
Date of issuance: December 10, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14321A713; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR
60518).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 10, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: December 19, 2013, as
supplemented by letter dated June 11, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to
the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 facility operating license to
revise the date for implementation of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security
Plan (CSP) Implementation Schedule and the existing license conditions
in the facility operating license. Milestone 8 of the CSP
implementation schedule concerns the full implementation of the CSP.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14311A479; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38576). The supplemental letter dated June 11, 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 December 12, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353, and 72-65,
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-219 and 72-15,
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
171, 50-277, 50-278, and 72-29, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
Units 1, 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-289 and 50-320, Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: October 30, 2013, as
supplemented by letter dated June 13, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Emergency Plan definition of Annual Training from ``Retraining is
performed on an annual basis, which is defined as every 12-months + 3
months (25% grace period),'' to ``Retraining is performed once per year
not to exceed 18-months between training sessions.''
Date of issuance: December 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 212, 173, 283, 12, 294, 297, and 283. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14226A940;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-16,
DPR-12, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-50, and DPR-73: The amendments revised the
Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR
18333). The supplemental letter dated June 13, 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 December 24, 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: January 10, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated May 27, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
schedule for full implementation of the cyber security plan (CSP) and
Paragraph 2.D of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and
DPR-74 for CNP, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The CSP and associated
implementation schedule for CNP, Units 1 and 2 was previously approved
by NRC staff letter dated July 28, 2011, as supplemented by changes
approved in a letter dated December 13, 2012
Date of issuance: December 18, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 325 and 308. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14317A551; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38579). The supplemental letter dated May 27, 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 December 18, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 531]]
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated July 28, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the CNS Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth
in the CSP Implementation Schedule. The amendment also revised the
physical protection license condition in the renewed facility operating
license.
Date of issuance: December 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14323A644; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the renewed facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38580). The supplemental letter dated July 28, 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 December 12, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 2.5, ``Steam and Feedwater Systems,'' to allow a 7-day
completion time for restoration of the turbine-driven auxiliary
feedwater pump if it becomes inoperable following a refueling outage
and if Mode 2 has not yet been entered, based on Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-340, Revision 3.
Date of issuance: December 22, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 278. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14328A814; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the license and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38592).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated December 22, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocates the
operability and surveillance requirements for flood protection from the
Technical Specifications to the Technical Requirements Manual.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 196. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14108A399; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR
21299).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: December 24, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated June 23, 2014, and August 18, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Hope
Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation
date, as set forth in the CSP implementation schedule and the existing
License Condition 2.E in the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses NPF-
57, DPR-70, and DPR-75.
Date of issuance: December 23, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 197, 306, and 288. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14323A974; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79
FR 53461). The supplemental letters dated June 23, 2014, and August 18,
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 December 23, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 4, 2013 and September 8, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised various
technical specifications (TS) to upgrade the VCSNS TS to improve
operator usability by more closely aligning the TS with the latest form
and content of standard TS.
Date of issuance: November 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 20. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14265A072; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR
18334).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 532]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments: January 16, 2014, as
supplemented by letters dated May 2 and July 22, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.7.5, Control Room Air Conditioning System, to provide
new Required Actions (RAs) for one, two, or three main control room AC
subsystems inoperable, and make other required corresponding changes.
Date of issuance: December 10, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--270 and Unit 2--214. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14279A261; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the licenses and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR
49110). The supplemental letter dated May 2 and July 22, 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 December 10, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments: December 21, 2012, as
supplemented by letter dated June 21, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed
Operating Licenses to incorporate a degraded voltage protection
modification schedule into the Hatch licenses.
Date of issuance: December 16, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--271 and Unit 2--215. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14328A323; documents related
to this these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed
with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78
FR 54289).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-30966 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
