Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 43123-43134 [2015-17651]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
1. The title of the information
collection: NRC Form 171, ‘‘Duplication
Request.’’
2. OMB approval number: 3150–0066.
3. Type of submission: Extension.
4. The form number, if applicable:
NRC Form 171.
5. How often the collection is required
or requested: As needed (determined by
the public ordering documents.)
6. Who will be required or asked to
respond: Individuals, companies, or
organizations requesting document
duplication.
7. The estimated number of annual
responses: 108.
8. The estimated number of annual
respondents: 108.
9. The estimated number of hours
needed annually to comply with the
information collection requirement or
request: 9.
10. Abstract: This form is utilized by
the Public Document Room (PDR) staff
members who collect information from
the public requesting reproduction of
publicly available documents in NRC
Headquarters’ Public Document Room.
Copies of the form are utilized by the
reproduction contractor to accompany
the orders. One copy of the form is kept
by the contractor for their records, one
copy is sent to the public requesting the
documents, and the third copy (with no
credit card data) is kept by the PDR staff
for 90 calendar days, and then securely
discarded.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
III. Specific Requests for Comments
The NRC is seeking comments that
address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the
information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection on respondents
be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day
of July 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 2015–17765 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
43123
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2015–0171]
[Docket No. 40–8943; ASLBP No. 08–867–
02–OLA–BD01]
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;
Before Administrative Judges: Michael
M. Gibson, Chair; Dr. Richard E.
Wardwell; Brian K. Hajek; Alan S.
Rosenthal (Special Assistant to the
Board); In the Matter of Crow Butte
Resources, INC.; (License Renewal for
the In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford,
Nebraska); Notice (Regarding
Weapons at Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Proceeding)
July 14, 2015.
Notice is hereby given that the rules
and policies regarding the possession of
weapons in United States Courthouses
and United States Federal Buildings in
the State of Nebraska shall apply to all
proceedings conducted in Nebraska by
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. This includes the
evidentiary hearing in the above
captioned proceeding scheduled to
begin on Monday, August 24, 2015, at
the Crawford Community Building in
Crawford, Nebraska.1
Prohibited items, including weapons,
will not be permitted. Accordingly, no
person other than federal law
enforcement personnel or law
enforcement personnel from the Dawes
County Sheriff’s Department, or any
other authorized Nebraska state or local
law enforcement organization, while
performing official duties, shall wear or
otherwise carry a firearm, edged
weapon, impact weapon, electronic
control device, chemical weapon,
ammunition, or other dangerous
weapon.
This notice does not apply to state or
local law enforcement officers
responding to a call for assistance from
within the Crawford Community
Building.
It is so ordered.
For The Atomic Safety And Licensing
Board.
Dated: July 14, 2015 in Rockville,
Maryland.
Michael M. Gibson,
Chair, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. 2015–17848 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
1 Licensing Board Notice of Hearing (Notice of
Evidentiary Hearing and Opportunity to Provide
Written Limited Appearance Statements) (July 13,
2015) (unpublished).
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued, and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from June 25,
2015, to July 8, 2015. The last biweekly
notice was published on July 7, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
August 20, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by September 21, 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–2015–0171. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
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:
OWFN–12–H08, 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:
Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43124
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1927,
email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS.
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
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
Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this
means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–
0171 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0171.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–
0171, facility name, unit number(s),
application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
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 will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov, as well as enter
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309,
which is available at the NRC’s PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Room
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC’s regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC’s Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a
specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
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
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC
adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
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@nr.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRCissued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. Participants may
attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically
submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC’s online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
site. Further information on the Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43125
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 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 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, MD
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
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43126
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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, in some
instances, 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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
(DNC), Docket No. 50–336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New
London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 2,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15069A226.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification (TS) 6.19, ‘‘Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ for
MPS2. Specifically, DNC proposes to:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(1) Revise the definition of Pa [peak
calculated primary containment internal
pressure] in TS 6.19 that was introduced
into the TSs in License Amendment 203
to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs
3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the
acceptance criteria for leakage rate
testing of containment air lock door
seals to substitute the use of the makeup
flow method in lieu of the pressure
decay method currently used at MPS2.
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:
Criterion 1
[Does the] proposed amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed license amendment would
revise the definition of Pa that was
introduced into TS 6.19 under License
Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3. The design
basis accident remains unchanged for the
postulated events described in the MPS2
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Since
the initial conditions and assumptions
included in the safety analyses are
unchanged, the consequences of the
postulated events remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment [would] also
revise the method of surveillance for leakage
rate testing of the containment air lock door
seals. The makeup flow method will
continue to provide assurance that the
containment leakage rate is within the limits
assumed in the radiological consequences
analysis of the design basis accident,
therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
[Does the] proposed amendment create the
possibility for a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would: (1)
Revise the definition of Pa in TS 6.19 to be
consistent with the Pa value in TSs 3.6.1.2
and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the
containment air lock door seals. The
proposed amendment does not change the
way the plant is operated and does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant. No
new or different types of equipment will be
installed and there are no physical
modifications to existing equipment
associated with the proposed amendment.
Similarly, the proposed amendment would
not physically change any plant systems,
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
structures, or components involved in the
mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus,
no new initiators or precursors of a new or
different kind of accident are created.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment
does not create the possibility of a new
failure mode associated with any equipment
or personnel failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
[Does the] proposed amendment involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would: (1)
Revise the definition of Pa in TS 6.19 to be
consistent with the Pa value in TSs 3.6.1.2
and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the
containment air lock door seals. The
proposed amendment does not represent any
physical change to plant systems, structures,
or components, or to procedures established
for plant operation. The proposed
amendment does not affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis
analyses and current design limits will
continue to be met. Since the proposed
amendment does not affect the assumptions
or consequences of any accident previously
analyzed, there is no significant reduction in
the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I.
Dudek.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–336 and 50–423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2
and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January
15, 2015, as supplemented on April 15,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML15021A128 and ML15111A449,
respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendments would
revise or add Surveillance Requirements
to verify that the system locations
susceptible to gas accumulation are
sufficiently filled with water and to
provide allowances which permit
performance of the verification to the
Technical Specifications. The changes
are being made to address the concerns
discussed in Generic Letter 2008–01,
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation in
Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray
Systems.’’ The proposed amendments
would be consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler-523,
Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008–01,
‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation.’’
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:
Criterion 1
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS), Shutdown Cooling (SDC)
System, and the Containment Spray System
are not rendered inoperable due to
accumulated gas and to provide allowances
which permit performance of the revised
verification. Gas accumulation in the subject
systems is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The
proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems
continue to be capable to perform their
assumed safety function and are not rendered
inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus,
the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Criterion 2
Does the proposed amendment create the
possibility for a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, SDC
and the Containment Spray Systems are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident.
The proposed change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis and
is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Criterion 3
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, SDC
and the Containment Spray Systems are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to
manage gas accumulation in order to ensure
the subject systems are capable of performing
their assumed safety functions. The proposed
SRs are more comprehensive than the current
SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of
the safety analysis are protected. The
proposed change does not adversely affect
any current plant safety margins or the
reliability of the equipment assumed in the
safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made
to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed change.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I.
Dudek.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al.,
Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3
Nuclear Generating Plant (CR–3), Citrus
County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 7,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15134A160.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and
5.6.2.3 by changing the title of the
position with overall responsibility for
the safe handling and storage of nuclear
fuel and licensee initiated changes to
the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
(ODCM) from either the Plant Manager
or the Decommissioning Director to the
General Manager Decommissioning.
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, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets], which is
presented below:
Criterion 1
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant increase in the probability or
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43127
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The consolidation of Plant Manager and
Decommissioning Director to General
Manager Decommissioning changes to the
Administrative Controls sections of the CR–
3 Improved Technical Specifications has no
effect on the performance of these defined
responsibilities. The overall responsibility for
these Administrative Controls sections
remains at the same level or higher: (1)
Delegating in writing the succession to this
responsibility during any absence; (2)
approving, prior to implementation, any
change to tests, experiments or modifications
to systems or equipment that affect stored
nuclear fuel; (3) ensuring the acceptable
performance of the staff involved in
operating, maintaining, and providing
technical support to ensure the safe handling
and storage of the nuclear fuel; (4) ensuring
that the training and retraining of the
Certified Fuel Handler positions are in
accordance with the applicable standards;
and (5) ensuring that any licensee initiated
changes to the ODCM are effective only after
acceptance by the General Manager
Decommissioning.
The proposed CR–3 ITS [Improved
Technical Specifications] Administrative
Controls sections consolidation of Plant
Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning are
administrative in nature, and have no direct
effect on any plant system, the operation and
maintenance of CR–3 or any previously
evaluated accident.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical
changes associated with CR–3
decommissioning and placing the unit in the
permanently defueled safe storage condition.
Criterion 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 CR–3 ITS Administrative
Controls sections consolidation of Plant
Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning are
administrative in nature, and have no direct
effect on any plant system, the operation and
maintenance of CR–3 or any previously
evaluated accident. The consolidation of
Plant Manager and Decommissioning
Director to General Manager
Decommissioning changes to the
Administrative Controls sections of the CR–
3 ITS have no effect on the performance of
these previously delineated responsibilities.
The overall responsibility for these
Administrative Controls sections remains at
the same level or higher.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical
changes associated with CR–3
decommissioning and placing the unit in the
permanently defueled safe storage condition.
Criterion 3
Does the proposed amendment involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed CR–3 ITS Administrative
Controls sections consolidation of Plant
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43128
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning are
administrative in nature, have no direct effect
on any plant system, does not involve any
physical plant limits or parameters, License
Condition, Technical Specification Limiting
Condition of Operability, or operating
philosophy, and therefore cannot affect any
margin of safety.
The consolidation of Plant Manager and
Decommissioning Director to General
Manager Decommissioning changes to the
Administrative Controls sections of the CR–
3 ITS have no effect on the performance of
these previously delineated responsibilities.
The overall responsibility for these
Administrative Controls sections remains at
the same level or higher.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical
changes associated with CR–3
decommissioning and placing the unit in the
permanently defueled safe storage condition.
Therefore, a no significant hazards
consideration conclusion is reached.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 30,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15126A117.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
emergency plan by changing the
emergency action levels from a scheme
based upon Revision 5 of Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI)–99–01,
‘‘Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels,’’ to one based
upon Revision 6 of NEI 99–01,
‘‘Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.’’ The
NRC formally endorsed NEI 99–01,
Revision 6, in a letter dated March 28,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
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?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
These changes affect the HNP [Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant] Emergency Plan
and do not alter any of the requirements of
the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not
reduce the effectiveness of the HNP
Emergency Plan or the HNP Emergency
Response Organization. The proposed
changes do not modify any plant equipment
and do not impact any failure modes that
could lead to an accident. Additionally, the
proposed changes do not impact the
consequence of any analyzed accident since
the changes do not affect any equipment
related to accident mitigation.
Based on this discussion, the proposed
amendment does not increase 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?
These changes affect the HNP Emergency
Plan and do not alter any of the requirements
of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. These changes do not modify
any plant equipment and there is no impact
on the capability of the existing equipment
to perform their intended functions. No
system setpoints are being modified and no
changes are being made to the method in
which plant operations are conducted. No
new failure modes are introduced by the
proposed changes. The proposed amendment
does not introduce accident initiator or
malfunctions that would cause a new or
different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
These changes affect the HNP Emergency
Plan and do not alter any of the requirements
of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not
affect any of the assumptions used in the
accident analysis, nor do they affect any
operability requirements for equipment
important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not
result in a significant reduction in the margin
of safety as defined in the bases for Technical
Specifications covered in this license
amendment request.
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: Lara S. Nichols,
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street,
Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: May 7,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15127A469.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to the Main Control Room
Emergency Habitability System (VES)
configuration and equipment safety
designation. Because this proposed
change requires a departure from Tier 1
information in the Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control
Document (DCD), the licensee also
requested an exemption from the
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1
in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the VES for the
main control room (MCR) are to provide
breathable air, maintain positive
pressurization relative to the outside, provide
cooling of MCR equipment and facilities, and
provide passive air filtration within the MCR
boundary. The VES is designed to satisfy
these functions for up to 72 hours following
a design basis accident.
The proposed changes to the ASME Code
[American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] safety
classification of components, equipment
orientation and configuration, addition and
deletion of components, and correction to the
number of emergency air storage tanks would
not adversely affect any design function. The
proposed changes maintain the design
function of the VES with safety-related
equipment and system configuration
consistent with the descriptions in UFSAR
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]
Figure 6.4.2. The proposed changes do not
affect the support or operation of mechanical
and fluid systems. There is no change to the
response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the
predicted radioactive releases due to
postulated accident conditions. The plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not adversely affected, nor
do the proposed changes described create
any new accident precursors.
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
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to revise the VES
design related to the ASME Code safety
classification, equipment orientation and
configuration, addition and deletion of
components, and correction to the number of
emergency air storage tanks maintain
consistency with the design function
information in the USFAR. The proposed
changes do not create a new fault or sequence
of events that could result in a radioactive
release. The proposed changes would not
affect any safety-related accident mitigating
function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes do not affect the
ability of the VES to maintain the safetyrelated functions to the MCR. The VES
continues to meet the requirements for which
it was designed and continues to meet the
regulations. No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, and no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
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: April 9,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML5099A568.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to the Class 1E direct current
and Uninterruptible Power Supply
System, replacing four Spare
Termination Boxes with a single Spare
Battery Termination Box. Because this
proposed change requires a departure
from Tier 1 information in the
Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000
Design Control Document (DCD), the
licensee also requested an exemption
from the requirements of the Generic
DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that
initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSC)
accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events. The [Uninterruptible Power Supply
System] IDS design change involves
replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes
with a single Spare Battery Termination Box,
and minor raceway and cable routing
changes. The proposed changes maintain the
method used to manually connect the Spare
Battery Bank and Spare Battery Bank Charger
to supply loads of one of the four 24 Hour
Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72
Hour Battery Switchboards at a time while
maintaining the independence of the IDS
divisions. Therefore, the probabilities of the
accidents evaluated in the [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not
affected.
The proposed changes do not have an
adverse impact on the ability of the IDS
equipment to perform its design functions.
The design of the IDS equipment continues
to meet the same regulatory acceptance
criteria, electrical codes, and standards as
required by the UFSAR. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal
events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods
and turbine missiles, or their safety or design
analyses. In addition, the proposed changes
do not have an adverse effect on any safetyrelated SSC or function used to mitigate an
accident; therefore, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the
design functions of IDS or any of the systems
or equipment in the plant. The IDS design
change involves replacing the four Spare
Termination Boxes with a single Spare
Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway
and cable routing changes, and the electrical
equipment continues to perform its design
functions because the same electrical codes
and standards as stated in the UFSAR
continue to be met. The proposed changes
maintain the method used to manually
connect the Spare Battery Bank and Spare
Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one
of the four 24 Hour Battery Switchboards or
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43129
one of the two 72 Hour Battery Switchboards
at a time while maintaining the
independence of the IDS divisions.
These proposed changes do not adversely
affect any IDS or SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results
in a new failure mode, malfunction, or
sequence of events that affect safety-related
or non-safety-related equipment. Therefore,
this activity does not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
sequence of events that result in significant
fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes maintain existing
safety margins. The proposed changes do not
result in changes to the IDS design
requirements or design functions. The
proposed changes maintain existing safety
margin through continued application of the
existing requirements of the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the
same design functions in accordance with the
same codes and standards as stated in the
UFSAR. These proposed changes do not
affect any design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin.
Because no safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by these proposed changes, no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul
Kallan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2 (VEGP), Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 19,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15139A578.
Description of amendment request:
The licensee submitted a license
amendment request (LAR) proposing to
revise the minimum indicated nitrogen
cover pressure required per Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3 from the
current requirement of 626 pounds per
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43130
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
square inch gauge (psig) back to the
previous requirement of 617 psig. The
values for the nitrogen cover pressure
specified in SR 3.5.1.3 are indicated
values as read on the main control board
(MCB) indication. As noted in the LAR,
the minimum nitrogen cover pressure
was previously revised from 617 psig to
626 psig. That revision was requested as
an interim measure to compensate for
an increase in the uncertainty associated
with the accumulator nitrogen cover
pressure indication instrumentation,
from the transmitter to the MCB
indication. That uncertainty was
attributed to a specific production batch
of Veritrak/Tobar transmitters which
shown to exhibit a temperature
compensation shift effect of 1.58
percent. Of the 16 pressure transmitters
installed in VEGP, 15 were Veritrak/
Tobar transmitters. A conservative
decision was made to increase the TS
minimum indicated value. Subsequent
to the issuance of that amendment, the
higher uncertainty transmitters were
replaced with a different model. As a
result of the transmitter replacement,
the uncertainty of the affected
instrumentation was restored to the
value assumed in the Westinghouse
accident analysis. Therefore, a decrease
of the indicated minimum nitrogen
pressure value specified in the TS is
requested.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the
minimum nitrogen cover pressure specified
for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626
psig to 617 psig. The accumulators are not a
precursor to any accident previously
evaluated. The accumulators are used to
mitigate the consequences of accidents
previously evaluated. The proposed change
does not affect the probability or the
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the minimum
nitrogen cover pressure specified for the
accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
617 psig. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change to the requirements of the
TS assures that the acceptance limits of the
accumulators with respect to assumptions in
the LOCA [loss-of-coolant-accident] analyses
continue to be met. The proposed change
does not adversely affect the design function
or operation of any structures, systems, and
components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the minimum
nitrogen cover pressure specified for the
accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to
617 psig. The proposed change to the
indicated accumulator nitrogen cover
pressure provides assurance that the
requirements of the TS continue to bound the
acceptance limits of the accumulators with
respect to the assumptions in the LOCA
analyses. Thus the proposed change to the
accumulator minimum nitrogen cover
pressure assures the existing margin of safety
is maintained.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M.
Buettner, Associate General Counsel,
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
40 Inverness Center Parkway,
Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 29,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15127A260.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the South
Texas Project Electric Generation
Station Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) Table 15.6–17 to
correct errors introduced in UFSAR
Revisions 16 and 17.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. The proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change of correcting UFSAR
Table 15.6–17 does not involve physical
modifications to plant equipment and does
not change the operational methods or
procedures. The proposed change does not
affect any of the parameters or conditions
that could contribute to the initiation of any
accidents. Since [design basis accident
(DBA)] initiators are not being altered by
adoption of the proposed change, the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not affected. The safety margins
and analytical conservatisms associated with
the [Alternate Source Term (AST)]
methodology have been evaluated and were
found acceptable. The results of the revised
DBA analyses, performed in support of the
AST methodology change, are subject to
specific acceptance criteria as specified in
[Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ‘‘Alternative
Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating
Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors,’’ July 2000; ADAMS Accession No.
ML003716792]. The dose consequences
resulting from these DBAs remain within the
acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67
and RG 1.183. The proposed change of
correcting UFSAR Table 15.6–17 does not
change the analytical results of the
previously approved AST methodology
change.
Based on the above discussion, the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change is administrative in
nature and does not require any physical
changes to any structures, systems or
components involved in the mitigation of any
accidents. No new initiators or precursors of
a new or different kind of accident are
created. No new equipment or personnel
failure modes that might initiate a new type
of accident are created as a result of the
proposed change.
Based on the above discussion, the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change is administrative in
nature and does not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety. The safety
margins and analytical conservatisms
associated with the AST methodology were
evaluated and found acceptable. The results
of the revised DBA analyses, performed in
support of the proposed change, are subject
to specific acceptance criteria as specified in
RG 1.183. The dose consequences resulting
from these DBAs remain within the
acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67
and RG 1.183. The proposed change
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
continues to ensure that the dose results at
the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and low
population zone boundary (LPZ), as well as
the Control Room and TSC [Technical
Support Center], are within the specified
regulatory limits.
Based on the above discussion, 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 standards of
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
the NRC staff proposes to determine that
the request for amendments involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz,
Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael M.
Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket No. 50–339, North Anna Power
Station, Unit No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: May 22,
2015. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15147A029.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed license amendment
would revise Technical Specification
3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’ to
delete Note 1 to Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 to remove the
limitation that excludes Unit 2 from the
verification test requirement.
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 previously evaluated accident that
could be affected is a complete loss of offsite
power (LOOP). Analyses have been
performed to confirm that power distribution
system voltages and currents with both of the
new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency
bus ties in service are adequate during a Unit
trip scenario. The conditions under which
the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is
verified are the same as Unit 1. The
verification test may only be performed
under conditions that will not challenge
steady state operation or challenge the safety
of the Unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification
test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal
offsite circuit and alternate required offsite
circuit) will not significantly increase the
probability of a LOOP.
Once a LOOP has occurred, the
consequences are unaffected by availability
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and
alternate required offsite circuit). Therefore,
the Unit 2 verification test (normal offsite
circuit and alternate required offsite circuit)
will not affect the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Based on this discussion, the proposed
amendment does not increase 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 purpose of the surveillance test is to
verify the capability to manually transfer AC
[alternating current] power sources from the
normal offsite circuit to the alternate required
offsite circuit. The only effect of the change
is to permit the new Unit 2 required offsite
circuits to be tested in the same manner and
frequency as the corresponding Unit 1
circuits. Since the Unit 2 circuits are similar
to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is
a required TS Surveillance to demonstrate
operability of the alternate offsite circuits,
permitting the Unit 2 circuits to undergo the
same Surveillance test will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change enables SR testing of
the new Unit 2 alternate offsite AC circuits
to verify the capability to manually transfer
AC power sources from the normal offsite
circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit.
The margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design
functions during and following an accident
situation. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
containment system. The proposed change
does not directly affect these barriers, nor
does it involve any adverse impact on the
Class 1E circuits or SSCs [systems, structures,
and components] supplied by Class 1E
power.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43131
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March
14, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Oconee
Nuclear Station Technical
Specifications (TSs) for the Inservice
Testing Program to reflect the current
edition of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code that
is referenced in 10 CFR 50.55a(b).
Date of Issuance: July 7, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43132
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 393, 395, and 394.
A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15174A267; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17086).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 19,
2014, as supplemented by letters dated
October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014;
January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and
June 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment modifies Technical
Specifications Table 3.3–4, ‘‘Engineered
Safety Features Actuation System
Instrumentation,’’ revising the
Functional Unit 9.a, ‘‘Loss-of-Offsite
Power 6.9 kV Emergency Bus
Undervoltage—Primary,’’
instrumentation trip setpoint and
associated allowable value, and adding
two notes regarding channel setpoint
surveillance.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 146. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15163A056;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
63 The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR
52061). The supplemental letters dated
October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014;
January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and
June 30, 2015, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 10,
2014, as supplemented by letter dated
March 23, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised and added
Technical Specification (TS)
surveillance requirements to address the
concerns discussed in Generic Letter
2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas Accumulation
in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray
Systems,’’ dated January 11, 2008. The
TS changes are based on TS Task Force
Traveler-523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic
Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas
Accumulation,’’ dated February 21,
2013.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance, to be implemented by May 31,
2016.
Amendments Nos.: 297 and 300. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML15154A614;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The
amendments revised the Facility
Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR
52063). The supplemental letter dated
March 23, 2015, 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 June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request:
September 11, 2014, as supplemented
by letter dated November 10, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments revised the Technical
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Specifications (TSs) on licensed
operator training and qualification
education and experience eligibility
requirements.
Date of issuance: July 8, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 148. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML15167A315;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–63 and NPF–69: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR
70215). The supplemental letter dated
November 10, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 8, 2015.
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 amendment request: July 10,
2014, as supplemented by letter dated
May 7, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the TMI–1
Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, the amendment modified
TMI–1 TSs to address NRC Generic
Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core
Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems,’’ as
described in Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2,
‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas
Accumulation.’’
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 285. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15121A589;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–50. The amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR
52063). The supplemental letter dated
May 7, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in an SE
dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station (FCS),
Unit No. 1, Washington County,
Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August
16, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated August 13, 2014, and February 13
and March 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the design basis
method in the FCS Updated Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) for controlling
the raw water intake cell level during
periods of elevated river levels.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 282. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15111A399;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–40: The amendment revised
the license and the design basis as
described in the UFSAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15149). The supplemental letters dated
August 13, 2014, and February 13 and
March 24, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in an SE
dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: March
27, 2014, as supplemented by letters
dated February 19 and April 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised various technical
specification (TS) surveillance
requirements associated with the DCPP
emergency diesel generators (DGs). The
changes reflect the results of a revised
load study analysis, as well as a revision
to the DG 30-minute load rating. These
changes were submitted to address
multiple issues identified by NRC and
licensee investigations, and are
intended to correct various nonconservative TS values associated with
DG testing.
Date of issuance: July 1, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 240 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 220. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML15162A882;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
80 and DPR–82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR
49109). The supplemental letters dated
February 19 and April 29, 2015,
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 and public comment
is contained in a Safety Evaluation
dated July 1, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: Yes.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4,
Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January
30, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated March 20, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
license amendment revised the
Combined Licenses by revising Tier 2 *
information contained within the
Human Factors Engineering Design
Verification, Task Support Verification,
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43133
and Integrated System Validation plans.
These documents are incorporated by
reference in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report.
Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 35. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15141A449;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR
13902). The supplemental letter dated
March 20, 2015, provided additional
information that did not expand the
scope of the amendment request and did
not change the NRC staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry
Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry
County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: June 3,
2014, as supplemented by letter dated
February 4, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Figures 3.1–1 and
3.1–2, ‘‘Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor
Coolant System Heatup Limitations,’’
and ‘‘Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor
Coolant System Cooldown Limitations,’’
respectively, for clarification and to be
fully representative of the allowable
operating conditions during Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) startup and
cooldown evolutions. The revisions to
TS Figures 3.1–1 and 3.1–2 include: (1)
The extension of the temperature axes to
reflect temperatures up to RCS full
power operation; (2) the extension of the
pressure axes to less than 0 pounds per
square inch gage to bound RCS
conditions when vacuum-assist fill of
the RCS loops is performed; and (3) the
addition of information regarding the
reactor boltup temperature.
Date of issuance: June 26, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 285 and 285. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML15173A102.
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
43134
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Notices
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR
58812). The supplemental letter dated
February 4, 2015, 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 June 26, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day
of July, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015–17651 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. R2013–10R; Order No. 2586]
Rate Adjustment Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recent court of appeals remand of its
decision concerning implementation of
the Full Service IMb requirements. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: August 3,
2015. Reply comments are due: August
14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
12, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued its opinion in United
States Postal Service v. Postal
Regulatory Commission, 785 F.3d 740
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
(D.C. Cir. 2015). The court denied in
part and granted in part a Postal Service
petition for review of the Commission’s
November 21, 2013 order denying
implementation of the Full Service IMb
requirements for failure to comply with
39 U.S.C. 3622(d).1 785 F.3d at 744.
On July 8, 2015, the court issued its
mandate remanding the case to the
Commission. This order establishes
procedures on remand and solicits
comments on the standard to be applied
when considering whether mail
preparation changes are changes in rates
with respect to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d).
Background. On September 26, 2013,
the Postal Service filed notice of its
planned priced adjustment for market
dominant products.2 The Postal
Service’s Notice and proposed rate
increases failed to account for the
planned implementation of the Full
Service IMb requirements. Previously,
on April 18, 2013, the Postal Service
revised its Domestic Mail Manual to
modify the eligibility requirements for
mailers to qualify for automation FirstClass, Standard, Periodicals, and
Package Services rates. 78 FR 23137
(April 18, 2013). Full Service IMb was
now required to qualify for automation
rates, where previously mailers could
qualify for automation rates by using
either Full Service IMb or Basic IMb.
This change in the mail preparation
requirement for automation rates was
scheduled to take place on January 26,
2014. Id. However, in its Notice, the
Postal Service failed to adjust its billing
determinants to account for the effects
on the price cap calculation of the Full
Service IMb requirements.
After considering the Postal Service’s
responses to information requests and
comments from interested parties, the
Commission issued Order No. 1890,
finding that the Full Service IMb
requirements ‘‘constitute a classification
change with rate implications pursuant
to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(A) and 39 CFR
3010.23(d).’’ Order No. 1890 at 2.
Accordingly, as the Postal Service failed
to account for the deletion and
redefinition of rate cells as a result of
the Full Service IMb requirement when
adjusting its billing determinants for
First-Class, Standard, and Periodicals,
the Commission found that the
proposed rate adjustments exceeded the
price cap.3 As a result, the Commission
1 Order on Price Adjustments for Market
Dominant Products and Related Mail Classification
Changes, November 21, 2013 (Order No. 1890).
2 United States Postal Service Notice of MarketDominant Price Adjustment, September 26, 2013
(Notice).
3 Id. at 5. The Postal Service made adjustments to
the billing determinants to account for the effects
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
gave the Postal Service the option either
to defer implementation of the Full
Service IMb requirements or to submit
an amended notice of rate adjustment
that included billing determinants
adjusted to account for the effects of the
new requirements. Id. at 36. The Postal
Service chose to defer implementation
of the Full Service IMb requirements
and filed an appeal with the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals.4
The court’s opinion. On appeal the
court affirmed the Commission’s
authority to determine when mail
preparation changes affect the
application of the price cap.
Specifically, the court found that
[t]he Commission’s interpretation of the
statute prevents the Postal Service from
evading the price cap by shifting mailpieces
to higher rates through manipulation of its
mail preparation requirements. The
Commission’s interpretation is therefore
consistent with the price cap’s language and
purpose, and the Commission’s delegated
authority to administer the cap. 785 F.3d at
751.
The court nevertheless concluded that
the Commission’s exercise of its
authority was arbitrary and capricious
for failing to ‘‘articulate a
comprehensible standard for the
circumstances in which a change to
mail preparation requirements such as
the one in this case will be considered
a ‘change in rates.’ ’’ Id. at 753. In the
court’s view, the Commission failed to
properly explain the standard it was
applying to determine when a mail
preparation change constituted a price
change. Id. at 754. Thus, it granted the
Postal Service’s petition in part and
remanded the case to the Commission to
‘‘enunciate an intelligible standard and
then reconsider its decision in light of
that standard.’’ Id. at 756.
Request for comment. As directed by
the court, the Commission will proceed
to enunciate the standard applied to
determine when mail preparation
changes have rate effects with price cap
implications, based on its expertise and
past decisions considering similar
changes. The Commission requests
comments to afford all interested
persons an opportunity to provide input
on the standard used by the
Commission.
In conducting its analysis of whether
a mail preparation change constitutes a
rate change, the Commission will
evaluate the following four factors: (1)
Whether the change alters a basic
characteristic of a mailing, (2) the effect
of the Full Service IMb requirements on the price
cap calculation for Package Services.
4 Response of the United States Postal Service to
Order No. 1890, November 29, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM
21JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43123-43134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17651]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0171]
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 June 25, 2015, to July 8, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 7, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 20, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 21, 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-2015-0171. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, 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: Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear
[[Page 43124]]
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0171 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0171.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0171, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
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 will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov, as well as enter 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 Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner
[[Page 43125]]
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@nr.gov,
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 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, MD
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
[[Page 43126]]
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, in some instances, 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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15069A226.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 6.19, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' for MPS2. Specifically, DNC proposes to: (1) Revise the
definition of Pa [peak calculated primary containment
internal pressure] in TS 6.19 that was introduced into the TSs in
License Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in
TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the acceptance criteria for
leakage rate testing of containment air lock door seals to substitute
the use of the makeup flow method in lieu of the pressure decay method
currently used at MPS2.
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:
Criterion 1
[Does the] proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed license amendment would revise the definition of
Pa that was introduced into TS 6.19 under License
Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs
3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3. The design basis accident remains unchanged for
the postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included
in the safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the
postulated events remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment [would] also revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock
door seals. The makeup flow method will continue to provide
assurance that the containment leakage rate is within the limits
assumed in the radiological consequences analysis of the design
basis accident, therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
[Does the] proposed amendment create the possibility for a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition of
Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock
door seals. The proposed amendment does not change the way the plant
is operated and does not involve a physical alteration of the plant.
No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there
are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with
the proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not
physically change any plant systems, structures, or components
involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus, no new
initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are
created.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new failure mode associated with any equipment or
personnel failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
[Does the] proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition of
Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock
door seals. The proposed amendment does not represent any physical
change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to procedures
established for plant operation. The proposed amendment does not
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
and current design limits will continue to be met. Since the
proposed amendment does not affect the assumptions or consequences
of any accident previously analyzed, there is no significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2015, as supplemented on
April 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15021A128 and ML15111A449, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise or add Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system
locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with
water and to provide allowances which permit performance of the
verification to the Technical Specifications. The changes are being
made to address the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01,
[[Page 43127]]
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems.'' The proposed amendments would
be consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler-523,
Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation.''
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:
Criterion 1
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirements
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS), Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, and the Containment
Spray System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Does the proposed amendment create the possibility for a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems
are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems
are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety
analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed change.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal
River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15134A160.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing
the title of the position with overall responsibility for the safe
handling and storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to
the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) from either the Plant
Manager or the Decommissioning Director to the General Manager
Decommissioning.
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which
is presented below:
Criterion 1
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director
to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative
Controls sections of the CR-3 Improved Technical Specifications has
no effect on the performance of these defined responsibilities. The
overall responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections
remains at the same level or higher: (1) Delegating in writing the
succession to this responsibility during any absence; (2) approving,
prior to implementation, any change to tests, experiments or
modifications to systems or equipment that affect stored nuclear
fuel; (3) ensuring the acceptable performance of the staff involved
in operating, maintaining, and providing technical support to ensure
the safe handling and storage of the nuclear fuel; (4) ensuring that
the training and retraining of the Certified Fuel Handler positions
are in accordance with the applicable standards; and (5) ensuring
that any licensee initiated changes to the ODCM are effective only
after acceptance by the General Manager Decommissioning.
The proposed CR-3 ITS [Improved Technical Specifications]
Administrative Controls sections consolidation of Plant Manager and
Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning are
administrative in nature, and have no direct effect on any plant
system, the operation and maintenance of CR-3 or any previously
evaluated accident.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently
defueled safe storage condition.
Criterion 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 CR-3 ITS Administrative Controls sections
consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning are administrative in nature, and
have no direct effect on any plant system, the operation and
maintenance of CR-3 or any previously evaluated accident. The
consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative
Controls sections of the CR-3 ITS have no effect on the performance
of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall
responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at
the same level or higher.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently
defueled safe storage condition.
Criterion 3
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed CR-3 ITS Administrative Controls sections
consolidation of Plant
[[Page 43128]]
Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager
Decommissioning are administrative in nature, have no direct effect
on any plant system, does not involve any physical plant limits or
parameters, License Condition, Technical Specification Limiting
Condition of Operability, or operating philosophy, and therefore
cannot affect any margin of safety.
The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director
to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative
Controls sections of the CR-3 ITS have no effect on the performance
of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall
responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at
the same level or higher.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently
defueled safe storage condition.
Therefore, a no significant hazards consideration conclusion is
reached.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15126A117.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
emergency plan by changing the emergency action levels from a scheme
based upon Revision 5 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)-99-01,
``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' to one
based upon Revision 6 of NEI 99-01, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.'' The NRC formally endorsed NEI 99-01,
Revision 6, in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
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?
These changes affect the HNP [Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant] Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of
the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed
changes do not reduce the effectiveness of the HNP Emergency Plan or
the HNP Emergency Response Organization. The proposed changes do not
modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that
could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not
impact the consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do
not affect any equipment related to accident mitigation.
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not
increase 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?
These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. These changes do not modify any plant equipment and
there is no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to
perform their intended functions. No system setpoints are being
modified and no changes are being made to the method in which plant
operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the
proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident
initiator or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind
of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the
assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect any
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for
Technical Specifications covered in this license amendment request.
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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
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: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A469.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES)
configuration and equipment safety designation. Because this proposed
change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also
requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1
in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the VES for the main control room (MCR)
are to provide breathable air, maintain positive pressurization
relative to the outside, provide cooling of MCR equipment and
facilities, and provide passive air filtration within the MCR
boundary. The VES is designed to satisfy these functions for up to
72 hours following a design basis accident.
The proposed changes to the ASME Code [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] safety
classification of components, equipment orientation and
configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction
to the number of emergency air storage tanks would not adversely
affect any design function. The proposed changes maintain the design
function of the VES with safety-related equipment and system
configuration consistent with the descriptions in UFSAR [Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report] Figure 6.4.2. The proposed changes do
not affect the support or operation of mechanical and fluid systems.
There is no change to the response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor do the proposed changes described create any new
accident precursors.
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
[[Page 43129]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to revise the VES design related to the
ASME Code safety classification, equipment orientation and
configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction
to the number of emergency air storage tanks maintain consistency
with the design function information in the USFAR. The proposed
changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could
result in a radioactive release. The proposed changes would not
affect any safety-related accident mitigating function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes do not affect the ability of the VES to
maintain the safety-related functions to the MCR. The VES continues
to meet the requirements for which it was designed and continues to
meet the regulations. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
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: Paul Kallan.
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: April 9, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML5099A568.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Class 1E direct current and Uninterruptible Power Supply
System, replacing four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare
Battery Termination Box. Because this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an
exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance
with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The [Uninterruptible Power Supply
System] IDS design change involves replacing the four Spare
Termination Boxes with a single Spare Battery Termination Box, and
minor raceway and cable routing changes. The proposed changes
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS
divisions. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated
in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not
affected.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the
ability of the IDS equipment to perform its design functions. The
design of the IDS equipment continues to meet the same regulatory
acceptance criteria, electrical codes, and standards as required by
the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., accidents,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. In addition, the
proposed changes do not have an adverse effect on any safety-related
SSC or function used to mitigate an accident; therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the design functions of IDS
or any of the systems or equipment in the plant. The IDS design
change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a
single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable
routing changes, and the electrical equipment continues to perform
its design functions because the same electrical codes and standards
as stated in the UFSAR continue to be met. The proposed changes
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS
divisions.
These proposed changes do not adversely affect any IDS or SSC
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect
safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. Therefore, this
activity does not allow for a new fission product release path,
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a
new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding
failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes do not result in changes to the IDS design
requirements or design functions. The proposed changes maintain
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy
the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and
standards as stated in the UFSAR. These proposed changes do not
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by these proposed changes, no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15139A578.
Description of amendment request: The licensee submitted a license
amendment request (LAR) proposing to revise the minimum indicated
nitrogen cover pressure required per Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3 from the current requirement of
626 pounds per
[[Page 43130]]
square inch gauge (psig) back to the previous requirement of 617 psig.
The values for the nitrogen cover pressure specified in SR 3.5.1.3 are
indicated values as read on the main control board (MCB) indication. As
noted in the LAR, the minimum nitrogen cover pressure was previously
revised from 617 psig to 626 psig. That revision was requested as an
interim measure to compensate for an increase in the uncertainty
associated with the accumulator nitrogen cover pressure indication
instrumentation, from the transmitter to the MCB indication. That
uncertainty was attributed to a specific production batch of Veritrak/
Tobar transmitters which shown to exhibit a temperature compensation
shift effect of 1.58 percent. Of the 16 pressure transmitters installed
in VEGP, 15 were Veritrak/Tobar transmitters. A conservative decision
was made to increase the TS minimum indicated value. Subsequent to the
issuance of that amendment, the higher uncertainty transmitters were
replaced with a different model. As a result of the transmitter
replacement, the uncertainty of the affected instrumentation was
restored to the value assumed in the Westinghouse accident analysis.
Therefore, a decrease of the indicated minimum nitrogen pressure value
specified in the TS is requested.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the minimum nitrogen cover
pressure specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig
to 617 psig. The accumulators are not a precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. The accumulators are used to mitigate the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change
does not affect the probability or the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure
specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617
psig. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change to the requirements of the TS assures that the
acceptance limits of the accumulators with respect to assumptions in
the LOCA [loss-of-coolant-accident] analyses continue to be met. The
proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to
safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure
specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617
psig. The proposed change to the indicated accumulator nitrogen
cover pressure provides assurance that the requirements of the TS
continue to bound the acceptance limits of the accumulators with
respect to the assumptions in the LOCA analyses. Thus the proposed
change to the accumulator minimum nitrogen cover pressure assures
the existing margin of safety is maintained.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A260.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
South Texas Project Electric Generation Station Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 15.6-17 to correct errors introduced in
UFSAR Revisions 16 and 17.
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6-17 does not
involve physical modifications to plant equipment and does not
change the operational methods or procedures. The proposed change
does not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. Since [design basis
accident (DBA)] initiators are not being altered by adoption of the
proposed change, the probability of an accident previously evaluated
is not affected. The safety margins and analytical conservatisms
associated with the [Alternate Source Term (AST)] methodology have
been evaluated and were found acceptable. The results of the revised
DBA analyses, performed in support of the AST methodology change,
are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in
[Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' July 2000; ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792]. The dose
consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within the acceptance
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The proposed change
of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6-17 does not change the analytical
results of the previously approved AST methodology change.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
require any physical changes to any structures, systems or
components involved in the mitigation of any accidents. No new
initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are
created. No new equipment or personnel failure modes that might
initiate a new type of accident are created as a result of the
proposed change.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the AST
methodology were evaluated and found acceptable. The results of the
revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the proposed change,
are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in RG
1.183. The dose consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within
the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The
proposed change
[[Page 43131]]
continues to ensure that the dose results at the exclusion area
boundary (EAB) and low population zone boundary (LPZ), as well as
the Control Room and TSC [Technical Support Center], are within the
specified regulatory limits.
Based on the above discussion, 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael M. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna
Power Station, Unit No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 22, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15147A029.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
would revise Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,''
to delete Note 1 to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 to remove the
limitation that excludes Unit 2 from the verification test requirement.
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 previously evaluated accident that could be affected is a
complete loss of offsite power (LOOP). Analyses have been performed
to confirm that power distribution system voltages and currents with
both of the new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency bus ties in
service are adequate during a Unit trip scenario. The conditions
under which the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is verified are
the same as Unit 1. The verification test may only be performed
under conditions that will not challenge steady state operation or
challenge the safety of the Unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification
test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal offsite circuit and
alternate required offsite circuit) will not significantly increase
the probability of a LOOP.
Once a LOOP has occurred, the consequences are unaffected by
availability of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and alternate
required offsite circuit). Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test
(normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will
not affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not
increase 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 purpose of the surveillance test is to verify the capability
to manually transfer AC [alternating current] power sources from the
normal offsite circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit.
The only effect of the change is to permit the new Unit 2 required
offsite circuits to be tested in the same manner and frequency as
the corresponding Unit 1 circuits. Since the Unit 2 circuits are
similar to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is a required TS
Surveillance to demonstrate operability of the alternate offsite
circuits, permitting the Unit 2 circuits to undergo the same
Surveillance test will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change enables SR testing of the new Unit 2
alternate offsite AC circuits to verify the capability to manually
transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the
alternate required offsite circuit.
The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers,
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the Class 1E circuits or
SSCs [systems, structures, and components] supplied by Class 1E
power.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Oconee
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Inservice
Testing Program to reflect the current edition of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code that is referenced in 10 CFR
50.55a(b).
Date of Issuance: July 7, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
[[Page 43132]]
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 393, 395, and 394. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15174A267; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17086).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 19, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014; January 30, 2015;
May 13, 2015; and June 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical
Specifications Table 3.3-4, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System Instrumentation,'' revising the Functional Unit 9.a, ``Loss-of-
Offsite Power 6.9 kV Emergency Bus Undervoltage--Primary,''
instrumentation trip setpoint and associated allowable value, and
adding two notes regarding channel setpoint surveillance.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 146. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15163A056; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52061). The supplemental letters dated October 23, 2014; November
13, 2014; January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and June 30, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated March 23, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and added
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to address the
concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008. The TS changes are
based on TS Task Force Traveler-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-
01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented by
May 31, 2016.
Amendments Nos.: 297 and 300. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15154A614; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated March 23, 2015, 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 June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated November 10, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) on licensed operator training and
qualification education and experience eligibility requirements.
Date of issuance: July 8, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 148. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15167A315; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79
FR 70215). The supplemental letter dated November 10, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 8, 2015.
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 amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated May 7, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the TMI-1
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment modified
TMI-1 TSs to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing
Gas Accumulation.''
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15121A589; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
[[Page 43133]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated May 7, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 16, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13 and March 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the design
basis method in the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for
controlling the raw water intake cell level during periods of elevated
river levels.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 282. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15111A399; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the license and the design basis as described in the UFSAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15149). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13
and March 24, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 19 and April 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised various
technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements associated with
the DCPP emergency diesel generators (DGs). The changes reflect the
results of a revised load study analysis, as well as a revision to the
DG 30-minute load rating. These changes were submitted to address
multiple issues identified by NRC and licensee investigations, and are
intended to correct various non-conservative TS values associated with
DG testing.
Date of issuance: July 1, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 240 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 220. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15162A882; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR
49109). The supplemental letters dated February 19 and April 29, 2015,
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 and public
comment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 20, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the
Combined Licenses by revising Tier 2 * information contained within the
Human Factors Engineering Design Verification, Task Support
Verification, and Integrated System Validation plans. These documents
are incorporated by reference in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report.
Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 35. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15141A449; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR
13902). The supplemental letter dated March 20, 2015, provided
additional information that did not expand the scope of the amendment
request and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: June 3, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated February 4, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2, ``Surry Units 1 and 2
Reactor Coolant System Heatup Limitations,'' and ``Surry Units 1 and 2
Reactor Coolant System Cooldown Limitations,'' respectively, for
clarification and to be fully representative of the allowable operating
conditions during Reactor Coolant System (RCS) startup and cooldown
evolutions. The revisions to TS Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 include: (1)
The extension of the temperature axes to reflect temperatures up to RCS
full power operation; (2) the extension of the pressure axes to less
than 0 pounds per square inch gage to bound RCS conditions when vacuum-
assist fill of the RCS loops is performed; and (3) the addition of
information regarding the reactor boltup temperature.
Date of issuance: June 26, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 285 and 285. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15173A102.
[[Page 43134]]
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated February 4, 2015, 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 June 26, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-17651 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P