Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 2747-2755 [2015-00787]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0006. 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.
[NRC–2015–0006]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
must contact the Board Office (call 703–
292–7000 or send an email message to
nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov) at least 24
hours prior to the teleconference for the
public listening number. Please refer to
the National Science Board Web site
www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional
information and schedule updates (time,
place, subject matter or status of
meeting) which may be found at https://
www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point of
contact for this meeting is Jacqueline
Meszaros at jmeszaro@nsf.gov.
Ann Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2015–00896 Filed 1–15–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
Kay
Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC 20555–
0001; 301–415–1506, Kay.Goldstein@
nrc.gov.
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
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
25, 2014 to January 7, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on
January 6, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
February 19, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 23,
2015.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–
0006 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–2015–0006.
• 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2747
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–
0006 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
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
2748
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the NRC’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Room
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC’s regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC’s Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 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
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format
(PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC’s public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. A filing is considered
complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC’s Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2749
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments:
November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14315A084.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs)
associated with the primary
containment leakage rate testing
program. Specifically, the amendment
would extend the frequencies for
performance of the Type A containment
integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) and
the Type C containment isolation valve
leakage rate test, required by 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, ‘‘Primary Reactor
Containment Leakage Testing for WaterCooled Power Reactors.’’
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, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets]:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS
involves the extension of the PBAPS, Units
2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to
15 years and the extension of the Type C test
interval to 75 months. The current Type A
test interval of 120 months (10 years) would
be extended on a permanent basis to no
longer than 15 years from the last Type A
test. The current Type C test interval of 60
months for selected components would be
extended on a performance basis to no longer
than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine
months (total maximum interval of 84
months for Type C tests) are permissible only
for non-routine emergent conditions. The
proposed extension does not involve either a
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2750
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
physical change to the plant or a change in
the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled. The containment is designed to
provide an essentially leak tight barrier
against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the
containment and the testing requirements
invoked to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant’s ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve the prevention or identification of
any precursors of an accident. The change in
dose risk for changing the Type A test
frequency from three-per-ten years to onceper-fifteen-years, measured as an increase to
the total integrated dose risk for all internal
events accident sequences for PBAPS, is
5.99E–02 person-rem/yr (0.52%) using the
EPRI [Electric Power Research Institute]
guidance with the base case corrosion
included. The change in dose risk drops to
1.60E–02 person-rem/yr (0.14%) when using
the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology.
Therefore, this proposed extension does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
As documented in NUREG–1493, Type B
and C tests have identified a very large
percentage of containment leakage paths, and
the percentage of containment leakage paths
that are detected only by Type A testing is
very small. The PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type
A test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject
to two types of failure mechanisms that can
be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and; (2)
time based. Activity based failure
mechanisms are defined as degradation due
to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test
requirements and administrative controls
such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system
restoration ensure that containment integrity
is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and
construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment
inspections performed in accordance with
ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Section XI, the Maintenance Rule,
and TS requirements serve to provide a high
degree of assurance that the containment
would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on
the above, the proposed extensions do not
significantly increase the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes
exceptions previously granted to allow onetime extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were
for activities that would have already taken
place by the time this amendment is
approved; therefore, their deletion is solely
an administrative action that has no effect on
any component and no impact on how the
units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS
involves the extension of the PBAPS, Unit 2
and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test
interval to 75 months. The containment and
the testing requirements to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment
exist to ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate
the consequences of an accident do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change to the manner in which the plant
is operated or controlled.
The proposed amendment also deletes
exceptions previously granted to allow onetime extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were
for activities that would have already taken
place by the time this amendment is
approved; therefore, their deletion is solely
an administrative action that does not result
in any change in how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12
involves the extension of the PBAPS, Units
2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to
15 years and the extension of the Type C test
interval to 75 months for selected
components. This amendment does not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the
TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program
exist to ensure that the degree of containment
structural integrity and leak-tightness that is
considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak
rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the
extension of the interval between Type A
containment leak rate tests and Type C tests
for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed
surveillance interval extension is bounded by
the 15-year ILRT [i]nterval and the 75-month
Type C test interval currently authorized
within NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 94–01,
Revision 3–A. Industry experience supports
the conclusion that Type B and C testing
detects a large percentage of containment
leakage paths and that the percentage of
containment leakage paths that are detected
only by Type A testing is small. The
containment inspections performed in
accordance with ASME Section XI, TS and
the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high
degree of assurance that the containment
would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by Type A testing. The
combination of these factors ensures that the
margin of safety in the plant safety analysis
is maintained. The design, operation, testing
methods and acceptance criteria for Type A,
B, and C containment leakage tests specified
in applicable codes and standards would
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
continue to be met, with the acceptance of
this proposed change, since these are not
affected by changes to the Type A and Type
C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes
exceptions previously granted to allow one
time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were
for activities that would have already taken
place by the time this amendment is
approved; therefore, their deletion is solely
an administrative action and does not change
how the units are operated and maintained.
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of
safety.
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: J. Bradley
Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and
Deputy General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon
Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St.
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August
26, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14241A496).
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification Section 6.8.4.h,
‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,’’ extending the interval for
integrated leak rate test (ILRT) from the
current 10 years to 15 years.
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. The NRC staff performed
its own analysis, 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 licensee proposed to change only the
frequency of performing the ILRT, extending
it from the current 10 years to 15 years. No
previously evaluated accidents were
postulated to be caused by the frequency of
ILRT; consequently, changing the frequency
of ILRT alone does not increase the
probability of occurrence of any previously
evaluated accident.
The proposed amendment does not involve
any change in the design bases, performance,
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
or use of the containment system. Thus, the
containment system will continue to perform
its design functions during normal operation
and during the course of an accident (i.e., the
containment system will mitigate
radiological consequences of accident as it
was originally designed).
Therefore, there will be no significant
increase of 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 accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve
any change in the design bases, performance
or use of the containment system. Thus, no
new or different kind of accident could be
created by the proposed amendment.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any
new acceptance criteria or performance
parameters. The containment system, under
the proposed ILRT frequency, will continue
to perform its original design functions under
the original design and licensing bases. Thus,
the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction of margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on its
own analysis, determines that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the proposed
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe
Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL
33408–0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M.
Regner.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request:
November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14314A087.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
change Technical Specification (TS)
section 3.1, Table 3–3 for Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit No. 1, to correct an
administrative error in the surveillance
method for the containment wide range
radiation monitors.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1 Table 3–3 corrects an
administrative error to the stated surveillance
method introduced by TS Amendment 152
[dated March 25, 1993; ADAMS Accession
No. ML15005A051)], and will make the
surveillance method for the containment
high range radiation monitors consistent with
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)
Section 11.2 for the range of the monitors and
consistent with the guidance for special
calibration of these monitors contained in
NUREG–0737 [‘‘Clarification of TMI Action
Plan Requirements,’’ November 1980;
ADAMS Accession No. ML102560051] Table
II.F.1–3. The proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated because: (1) The
proposed amendment does not represent a
change to the system design, (2) the proposed
amendment does not alter, degrade, or
prevent action described or assumed in any
accident in the USAR from being performed,
(3) the proposed amendment does not alter
any assumptions previously made in
evaluating radiological consequences, and
[4]) the proposed amendment does not affect
the integrity of any fission product barrier.
No other safety related equipment is affected
by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the
surveillance method to be consistent with the
guidance in NUREG–0737 Table II.F.1–3. The
proposed change does not alter the physical
design, safety limits, or safety analysis
assumptions associated with the operation of
the plant. Hence, the proposed change does
not introduce any new accident initiators,
nor does it reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure or system
in the performance of their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which safety limits or limiting
safety system settings are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this proposed change. Further,
the proposed change does not change the
design function of any equipment assumed to
operate in the event of an accident. The
change only corrects the surveillance method
of the high range post-accident radiation
monitors to be consistent with the design of
the monitors and NUREG–0737.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2751
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka,
Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street
NW., Washington, DC 20006–3817.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R.
Oesterle.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request:
November 25, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14329B244.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
technical specification (TS) surveillance
requirement (SR) 4.7.2.1.1, to reduce the
required run time of the control room
emergency filtration subsystems, with
heaters on, from a minimum of 10 hours
to a minimum of 15 minutes, consistent
with Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF–522,
Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Ventilation System
Surveillance Requirements to Operate
for 10 hours per Month,’’ with minor
variations. The Notice of Availability
and model safety evaluation of TSTF–
522, Revision 0, were published in the
Federal Register on September 20, 2012
(77 FR 58421).
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 replaces an existing
SR to operate each Control Room Emergency
Filtration (CREF) subsystem equipped with
electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control
Program] with a requirement to operate each
subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters on.
This system is not an accident initiator and
therefore, these changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident. The proposed system and filter
testing change is consistent with current
regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
2752
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
perform their design function which may
include mitigating accidents. Thus the
change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
SR to operate each CREF subsystem with
electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP with a requirement to operate each
subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters on.
The change proposed for this ventilation
system does not change any system
operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting
Condition for Operation is met and the
system components are capable of
performing their intended safety functions.
The change does not create new failure
modes or mechanisms and no new accident
precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
SR to operate each CREF subsystem with
electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the
SFCP with a requirement to operate each
subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters on.
The design basis for the CREF systems’
heaters is to heat the incoming air which
reduces the relative humidity. The heater
testing change proposed will continue to
demonstrate that the heaters are capable of
heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent
with regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, PSEG concludes
that the proposed change presents no
significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant
hazards consideration’’ is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
PSEG Nuclear LLC–N21, P.O. Box 236,
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 20, 2014. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14324A969.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and
NPF–92 for the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4.
The requested amendment proposes
changes to revise the VEGP Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to
clarify a human factors engineering
operational sequence analysis related to
the AP1000 Automatic Depressurization
System and delete the Westinghouse
Electric Company’s document WCAP–
15847, ‘‘AP1000 Quality Assurance
Procedures Supporting NRC Review of
AP1000 DCD [Design Control
Document] Sections 18.2 and 18.8,’’ that
is incorporated by reference into the
UFSAR. Both of the requested changes
constitute changes to information
identified as Tier 2* information as
defined in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 52, Appendix
D, Section II.F.
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 deletion of WCAP–15847
removes obsolete and superseded procedures
from the licensing basis. The amendment of
the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task
alters the automatic depressurization system
(ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The
proposed changes to the procedures do not
involve any accident initiating component/
system failure or event, and the change to the
ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents
would occur if the tests were performed in
Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the
accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The affected procedures and
requirements do not adversely affect or
interact with safety-related equipment or a
radioactive material barrier, and this activity
does not involve the containment of
radioactive material. Thus, the proposed
changes would not affect any safety-related
accident mitigating function. The radioactive
material source terms and release paths used
in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus
the radiological releases in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are
not affected.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Removing WCAP–15847 from the UFSAR
and amending the OSA task regarding ADS
valve testing does not adversely affect the
design or operation of safety-related
equipment or equipment whose failure could
initiate an accident other than what is
already described in the licensing basis.
These changes do not adversely affect safetyrelated equipment or fission product barriers.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to remove WCAP–
15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA
task do not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment, design code compliance, design
function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin
because NQA–1 requirements are maintained
in other Westinghouse procedures and
testing of the ADS valves is still performed.
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
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 Progress, Inc., Docket Nos.
50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick
County, North Carolina; Duke Energy
Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50–261, H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.
2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina; Duke Energy
Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50–302,
Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating
Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment requests:
December 19, 2013. A redacted version
was provided by letter dated March 31,
2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Cyber Security
Plan Implementation Milestone 8
completion dates and the physical
protection license conditions.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of their
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Brunswick, Unit 1:
266, Brunswick, Unit 2: 294, H. B.
Robinson, Unit No. 2: 239, Shearon
Harris, Unit 1: 144, and Crystal River,
Unit 3: 245. A publicly-available version
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14318A929; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–71, DPR–62, DPR–23, and
NPF–63, and Facility Operating License
No. DPR–72. The amendments revised
the facility operating licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 06, 2014 (79 FR 25899).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of these amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 19,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request:
December 6, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated September 19, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) setpoints and
allowable values for certain area
temperature instrumentation associated
with the leak detection system.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 213 and 174. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14324A808;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR 18333).
The supplemental letter dated
September 19, 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 29,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2753
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1),
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment:
February 4, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated March 24, 2014, and
September 26, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment deleted various reporting
requirements contained in the Technical
Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the
amendment deleted the Sealed Source
Contamination Special Report and the
Startup Report, as well as the plantspecific annual reports regarding
periodic Leak Reduction Program tests,
Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve
and Pressurizer Safety Valve challenges,
specific activity analysis in which the
primary coolant exceeds the limits of TS
3.1.4.1, and major changes to
radioactive waste treatment systems.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance, and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 284. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14330A300;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–50: Amendment revised the
license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR
16882).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 30,
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:
November 7, as supplemented by letters
dated November 21 and December 10
and 19, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised a limited number of
Technical Specification Surveillance
Requirements by adding a note or
footnote permitting a one-time
extension from a refueling frequency
(i.e., at least once per 18 months) to a
maximum of 28 months.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 279. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
2754
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Accession No. ML14356A012;
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: November 17, 2014 (79 FR
68487). The supplemental letters dated
November 21 and December 10 and 19,
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 and final
determination of no significant hazards
consideration is contained in a safety
evaluation dated December 29, 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:
August 15, 2014, as supplemented
October 20, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) in response to the
application dated August 15, 2014, as
supplemented October 20, 2014. The
amendments revise TS 3.8.7,
‘‘Distribution Systems—Operating’’ to
add critical instrumentation Busses as a
result of the licensee’s decision to
reconfigure its busses in order to
comply with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Order
EA–12–049, ‘‘Order to Modify Licenses
with Regard to Requirements for
Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design
Basis External Events (BDBEE).’’
Date of issuance: December 23, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the end of the spring 2016
refueling outage for Unit 1 and prior to
the end of the spring 2015 refueling
outage for Unit 2.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–272 and
Unit 2–216. A publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14349A715; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
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: September 2, 2014 (79 FR
52069). The supplemental letter dated
October 20, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 23,
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:
March 17, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical
Specification Task Force traveler TSTF–
535, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Shutdown
Margin Definition to Address Advanced
Fuel Designs,’’ which is an approved
change to the Standard Technical
Specifications. The changes modify the
TS definition of ‘‘Shutdown Margin’’
(SDM) to require calculation of the SDM
at a reactor moderator temperature of
68 °F or a higher temperature that
represents the most reactive state
throughout the operating cycle.
Date of issuance: January 6, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to reactor startup following Unit 1
refueling outage 1R27 (spring 2016) and
prior to reactor startup following Unit 2
refueling outage 2R23 (spring 2015).
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–273 and
Unit 2–217. A publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML14345A895; 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: July 22, 2014, (79 FR 42552).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of application for amendments:
August 31, 2012, as supplemented May
17, July 2 and September 13, 2013, and
May 2, July 22, and August 11, 2014.
Publicly-available copies of these
documents are available in ADAMS at
Accession Nos. ML12248A035,
ML13137A480, ML13184A267,
ML13256A306, ML14122A364,
ML14203A252 and ML14223A616.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revise the licensing basis
for the VEGP by adding license
conditions that allow for the voluntary
implementation of the regulation in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.69,
‘‘Risk-informed categorization and
treatment of structures, systems, and
components for nuclear power
reactors.’’ As stated in 10 CFR 50.69, a
licensee may voluntarily comply with
10 CFR 50.69 as an alternative to
compliance with the following
requirements for certain structures,
systems and components (SSCs) after it
submits and NRC approves an
application for license amendment: (i)
10 CFR part 21; (ii) a portion of 10 CFR
50.46; (iii) 10 CFR 50.49; (iv) 10 CFR
50.55(e); (v) certain requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a; (vi) 10 CFR 50.65, except
for paragraph (a)(4); (vii) 10 CFR 50.72;
(viii) 10 CFR 50.73; (ix) Appendix B
to10 CFR part 50; (x) certain
containment leakage testing
requirements; and (xi) certain
requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR
part 100.
Date of issuance: December 17, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 173 and 155. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14237A034.
Documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR
52067). The supplemental letters dated
May 17 and July 2, 2013, provide
additional information that clarified the
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Notices
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 17,
2014.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day
of January 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015–00787 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee On Reactor
Safeguards; Notice of Meeting
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with the purposes of
Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic
Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting
on February 5–7, 2015, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Thursday, February 5, 2015,
Conference Room T2–B1, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman
(Open)—The ACRS Chairman will make
opening remarks regarding the conduct
of the meeting.
8:35 a.m.–10:30 a.m.: Final Safety
Evaluation Report Associated with the
South Texas Project (STP), Units 3 and
4, Combined License Application
(COLA) Referencing the Advanced
Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Design
(Open)—The Committee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions
with representatives of the staff and
NINA regarding the safety evaluation
associated with the STP, Units 3 and 4,
COLA.
10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Review of the
Generic Letter (GL)—Treatment of
Natural Phenomena Hazards in Fuel
Cycle Facilities (Open)—The Committee
will hear presentations by and hold
discussions with representatives of the
staff regarding the GL associated with
hazards at fuel cycle facilities.
1:15 p.m.–3:15 p.m.: Watts Bar Unit 2
Operating License (Open)—The
Committee will hear presentations by
and hold discussions with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
representatives of the staff and TVA
regarding the safety evaluation
associated with the Watts Bar, Unit 2,
operating license.
3:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m.: NUREG–0800,
‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review
of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear
Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ Section
13.1.2–13.1.3, ‘‘Operating
Organization,’’ Draft Rev 7 (Open)—The
Committee will hear presentations by
and hold discussions with
representatives of the staff regarding
specific sections of the Standard Review
Plan.
4:30 p.m.–6:00 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee
will discuss proposed ACRS reports on
matters discussed during this meeting.
Friday, February 6, 2015, Conference
Room T2–B1, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m.: Future ACRS
Activities/Report of the Planning and
Procedures Subcommittee (Open/
Closed)—The Committee will discuss
the recommendations of the Planning
and Procedures Subcommittee regarding
items proposed for consideration by the
Full Committee during future ACRS
Meetings, and matters related to the
conduct of ACRS business, including
anticipated workload and member
assignments. NOTE: A portion of this
meeting may be closed pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss
organizational and personnel matters
that relate solely to internal personnel
rules and practices of ACRS, and
information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
10:00 a.m.–10:15 a.m.: Reconciliation
of ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)—The
Committee will discuss the responses
from the NRC Executive Director for
Operations to comments and
recommendations included in recent
ACRS reports and letters.
10:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.: Preparation for
Meeting with the Commission in March
2015 (Open)—The Committee will
discuss topics in preparation for the
meeting with the Commission.
1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee
will continue its discussion of proposed
ACRS reports on matters discussed
during this meeting.
Saturday, February 7, 2015, Conference
Room T2–B1, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The Committee
will continue its discussion of proposed
ACRS reports.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2755
11:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.: Miscellaneous
(Open)—The Committee will continue
its discussion related to the conduct of
Committee activities and specific issues
that were not completed during
previous meetings.
Procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 13, 2014 (79 FR 59307–59308).
In accordance with those procedures,
oral or written views may be presented
by members of the public, including
representatives of the nuclear industry.
Persons desiring to make oral statements
should notify Quynh Nguyen, Cognizant
ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301–415–5844,
Email: Quynh.Nguyen@nrc.gov), five
days before the meeting, if possible, so
that appropriate arrangements can be
made to allow necessary time during the
meeting for such statements. In view of
the possibility that the schedule for
ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the
Chairman as necessary to facilitate the
conduct of the meeting, persons
planning to attend should check with
the Cognizant ACRS staff if such
rescheduling would result in major
inconvenience.
Thirty-five hard copies of each
presentation or handout should be
provided 30 minutes before the meeting.
In addition, one electronic copy of each
presentation should be emailed to the
Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before
meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be
provided within this timeframe,
presenters should provide the Cognizant
ACRS Staff with a CD containing each
presentation at least 30 minutes before
the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d)
of Public Law 92–463 and 5 U.S.C.
552b(c), certain portions of the February
6th meeting may be closed, as
specifically noted above. Use of still,
motion picture, and television cameras
during the meeting may be limited to
selected portions of the meeting as
determined by the Chairman. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only
during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting
transcripts, and letter reports are
available through the NRC Public
Document Room at pdr.resource@
nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1–800–
397–4209, or from the Publicly
Available Records System (PARS)
component of NRC’s document system
(ADAMS) which is accessible from the
NRC Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html or https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/ACRS/.
Video teleconferencing service is
available for observing open sessions of
ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2747-2755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00787]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0006]
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 25, 2014 to January 7, 2015. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 6, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 19, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 23, 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-2015-0006. 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: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; 301-415-1506, Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0006 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-2015-0006.
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-2015-0006 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
[[Page 2748]]
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for 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
[[Page 2749]]
NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC
Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using
unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and
3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: November 7, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14315A084.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) associated with the primary
containment leakage rate testing program. Specifically, the amendment
would extend the frequencies for performance of the Type A containment
integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) and the Type C containment
isolation valve leakage rate test, required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
J, ``Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power
Reactors.''
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, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets]:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The
current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be
extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the
last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for
selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no
longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total
maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only
for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not
involve either a
[[Page 2750]]
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the
plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to
provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled
release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated
accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of
any precursors of an accident. The change in dose risk for changing
the Type A test frequency from three-per-ten years to once-per-
fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose
risk for all internal events accident sequences for PBAPS, is 5.99E-
02 person-rem/yr (0.52%) using the EPRI [Electric Power Research
Institute] guidance with the base case corrosion included. The
change in dose risk drops to 1.60E-02 person-rem/yr (0.14%) when
using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. Therefore, this
proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
As documented in NUREG-1493, Type B and C tests have identified
a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is very small. The PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A test
history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based,
and; (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative
controls such as configuration management and procedural
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance
activities. The design and construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in
accordance with ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers]
Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based
on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved;
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that
has no effect on any component and no impact on how the units are
operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the
PBAPS, Unit 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and
the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability
to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any
accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not
involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different
type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in
which the plant is operated or controlled.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved;
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that
does not result in any change in how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of
the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for
selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist
to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed surveillance interval extension
is bounded by the 15-year ILRT [i]nterval and the 75-month Type C
test interval currently authorized within NEI [Nuclear Energy
Institute] 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the
conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of
containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment
leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The
containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section
XI, TS and the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high degree of
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors
ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance
criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in
applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the
acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by
changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 2 and 3. These exceptions were for activities that would
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved;
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action and
does not change how the units are operated and maintained. Thus,
there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon
Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 26, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14241A496).
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification Section 6.8.4.h, ``Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,'' extending the interval for integrated leak rate test
(ILRT) from the current 10 years to 15 years.
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. The NRC staff performed its own analysis, 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 licensee proposed to change only the frequency of performing
the ILRT, extending it from the current 10 years to 15 years. No
previously evaluated accidents were postulated to be caused by the
frequency of ILRT; consequently, changing the frequency of ILRT
alone does not increase the probability of occurrence of any
previously evaluated accident.
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the design
bases, performance,
[[Page 2751]]
or use of the containment system. Thus, the containment system will
continue to perform its design functions during normal operation and
during the course of an accident (i.e., the containment system will
mitigate radiological consequences of accident as it was originally
designed).
Therefore, there will be no significant increase of 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 accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the design
bases, performance or use of the containment system. Thus, no new or
different kind of accident could be created by the proposed
amendment.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any new acceptance criteria
or performance parameters. The containment system, under the
proposed ILRT frequency, will continue to perform its original
design functions under the original design and licensing bases.
Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
of margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
its own analysis, determines that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14314A087.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change Technical Specification (TS) section 3.1, Table 3-3 for Fort
Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to correct an administrative error in the
surveillance method for the containment wide range radiation monitors.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to Technical Specification (TS) 3.1 Table 3-
3 corrects an administrative error to the stated surveillance method
introduced by TS Amendment 152 [dated March 25, 1993; ADAMS
Accession No. ML15005A051)], and will make the surveillance method
for the containment high range radiation monitors consistent with
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 11.2 for the range of
the monitors and consistent with the guidance for special
calibration of these monitors contained in NUREG-0737
[``Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,'' November 1980;
ADAMS Accession No. ML102560051] Table II.F.1-3. The proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because: (1) The
proposed amendment does not represent a change to the system design,
(2) the proposed amendment does not alter, degrade, or prevent
action described or assumed in any accident in the USAR from being
performed, (3) the proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions
previously made in evaluating radiological consequences, and [4])
the proposed amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission
product barrier. No other safety related equipment is affected by
the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the surveillance method to be
consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0737 Table II.F.1-3. The
proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits,
or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the
plant. Hence, the proposed change does not introduce any new
accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure or system in the performance of
their safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this proposed
change. Further, the proposed change does not change the design
function of any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an
accident. The change only corrects the surveillance method of the
high range post-accident radiation monitors to be consistent with
the design of the monitors and NUREG-0737.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: November 25, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14329B244.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise technical specification (TS) surveillance requirement (SR)
4.7.2.1.1, to reduce the required run time of the control room
emergency filtration subsystems, with heaters on, from a minimum of 10
hours to a minimum of 15 minutes, consistent with Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0,
``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10
hours per Month,'' with minor variations. The Notice of Availability
and model safety evaluation of TSTF-522, Revision 0, were published in
the Federal Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
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 replaces an existing SR to operate each
Control Room Emergency Filtration (CREF) subsystem equipped with
electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a frequency controlled
in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program]
with a requirement to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous
minutes with heaters on.
This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing change is
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems
[[Page 2752]]
perform their design function which may include mitigating
accidents. Thus the change does not involve a significant increase
in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each CREF
subsystem with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement
to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
The change proposed for this ventilation system does not change
any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Condition for Operation is met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate each CREF
subsystem with electric heaters on for a 10 hour period at a
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement
to operate each subsystem for 15 continuous minutes with heaters on.
The design basis for the CREF systems' heaters is to heat the
incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater testing
change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are
capable of heating the air and will perform their design function.
The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed change
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no
significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC-N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
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 20, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14324A969.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes
changes to revise the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
to clarify a human factors engineering operational sequence analysis
related to the AP1000 Automatic Depressurization System and delete the
Westinghouse Electric Company's document WCAP-15847, ``AP1000 Quality
Assurance Procedures Supporting NRC Review of AP1000 DCD [Design
Control Document] Sections 18.2 and 18.8,'' that is incorporated by
reference into the UFSAR. Both of the requested changes constitute
changes to information identified as Tier 2* information as defined in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, Appendix D,
Section II.F.
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 deletion of WCAP-15847 removes obsolete and
superseded procedures from the licensing basis. The amendment of the
operational sequence analysis (OSA) task alters the automatic
depressurization system (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The
proposed changes to the procedures do not involve any accident
initiating component/system failure or event, and the change to the
ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents would occur if the tests
were performed in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the accidents
previously evaluated are not affected. The affected procedures and
requirements do not adversely affect or interact with safety-related
equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity does
not involve the containment of radioactive material. Thus, the
proposed changes would not affect any safety-related accident
mitigating function. The radioactive material source terms and
release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the
radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
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.
Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amending the OSA task
regarding ADS valve testing does not adversely affect the design or
operation of safety-related equipment or equipment whose failure
could initiate an accident other than what is already described in
the licensing basis. These changes do not adversely affect safety-
related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to remove WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and
amend the OSA task do not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment, design code compliance, design function, design analysis,
safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin because
NQA-1 requirements are maintained in other Westinghouse procedures
and testing of the ADS valves is still performed. 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
[[Page 2753]]
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 Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina;
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Duke
Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina; Duke Energy
Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear
Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment requests: December 19, 2013. A redacted version
was provided by letter dated March 31, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Milestone 8 completion dates and the
physical protection license conditions.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of their issuance and shall be
implemented within 30 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Brunswick, Unit 1: 266, Brunswick, Unit 2: 294, H.
B. Robinson, Unit No. 2: 239, Shearon Harris, Unit 1: 144, and Crystal
River, Unit 3: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14318A929; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, DPR-23, and
NPF-63, and Facility Operating License No. DPR-72. The amendments
revised the facility operating licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 06, 2014 (79 FR
25899).
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 6, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated September 19, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) setpoints and allowable values for certain area
temperature instrumentation associated with the leak detection system.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 213 and 174. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14324A808; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 1, 2014 (79 FR
18333). The supplemental letter dated September 19, 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 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendment: February 4, 2013, as
supplemented by letters dated March 24, 2014, and September 26, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted various
reporting requirements contained in the Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, the amendment deleted the Sealed Source Contamination
Special Report and the Startup Report, as well as the plant-specific
annual reports regarding periodic Leak Reduction Program tests,
Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valve and Pressurizer Safety Valve
challenges, specific activity analysis in which the primary coolant
exceeds the limits of TS 3.1.4.1, and major changes to radioactive
waste treatment systems.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 284. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14330A300; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised
the license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR
16882).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 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: November 7, as supplemented by letters
dated November 21 and December 10 and 19, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised a limited
number of Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements by adding a
note or footnote permitting a one-time extension from a refueling
frequency (i.e., at least once per 18 months) to a maximum of 28
months.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 279. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
[[Page 2754]]
Accession No. ML14356A012; 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: November 17, 2014 (79
FR 68487). The supplemental letters dated November 21 and December 10
and 19, 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 and final
determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a
safety evaluation dated December 29, 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: August 15, 2014, as
supplemented October 20, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) in response to the application dated
August 15, 2014, as supplemented October 20, 2014. The amendments
revise TS 3.8.7, ``Distribution Systems--Operating'' to add critical
instrumentation Busses as a result of the licensee's decision to
reconfigure its busses in order to comply with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Order EA-12-049, ``Order to Modify Licenses
with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design
Basis External Events (BDBEE).''
Date of issuance: December 23, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the end of the spring 2016 refueling outage for Unit 1 and
prior to the end of the spring 2015 refueling outage for Unit 2.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-272 and Unit 2-216. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14349A715; 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: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52069). The supplemental letter dated October 20, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 23, 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: March 17, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specification Task
Force traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin
Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs,'' which is an approved
change to the Standard Technical Specifications. The changes modify the
TS definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of
the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68[emsp14][deg]F or a
higher temperature that represents the most reactive state throughout
the operating cycle.
Date of issuance: January 6, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to reactor startup following Unit 1 refueling outage 1R27 (spring
2016) and prior to reactor startup following Unit 2 refueling outage
2R23 (spring 2015).
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-273 and Unit 2-217. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14345A895; 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: July 22, 2014, (79 FR
42552).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: August 31, 2012, as
supplemented May 17, July 2 and September 13, 2013, and May 2, July 22,
and August 11, 2014. Publicly-available copies of these documents are
available in ADAMS at Accession Nos. ML12248A035, ML13137A480,
ML13184A267, ML13256A306, ML14122A364, ML14203A252 and ML14223A616.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
licensing basis for the VEGP by adding license conditions that allow
for the voluntary implementation of the regulation in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.69, ``Risk-informed
categorization and treatment of structures, systems, and components for
nuclear power reactors.'' As stated in 10 CFR 50.69, a licensee may
voluntarily comply with 10 CFR 50.69 as an alternative to compliance
with the following requirements for certain structures, systems and
components (SSCs) after it submits and NRC approves an application for
license amendment: (i) 10 CFR part 21; (ii) a portion of 10 CFR 50.46;
(iii) 10 CFR 50.49; (iv) 10 CFR 50.55(e); (v) certain requirements of
10 CFR 50.55a; (vi) 10 CFR 50.65, except for paragraph (a)(4); (vii) 10
CFR 50.72; (viii) 10 CFR 50.73; (ix) Appendix B to10 CFR part 50; (x)
certain containment leakage testing requirements; and (xi) certain
requirements of Appendix A to 10 CFR part 100.
Date of issuance: December 17, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 173 and 155. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14237A034. Documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52067). The supplemental letters dated May 17 and July 2, 2013,
provide additional information that clarified the
[[Page 2755]]
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 17, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-00787 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P