[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6638-6645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02048]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0016]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

Background

    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 January 9, 2014, to January 22, 2014. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3412).

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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0016. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0016 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this action by the 
following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0016.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC 
Library at http://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 [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this document (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0016 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination,

[[Page 6639]]

any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that 
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
    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 regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on 
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is 
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request 
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of 
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing 
or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. 
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert 
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that 
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law 
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of 
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if 
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment 
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing 
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; 
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.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 http://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 
public 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC's guidance 
available on the NRC's public

[[Page 6640]]

Web site at http://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 agency'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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, a request to intervene will require including information on 
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of 
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except 
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings 
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested 
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 
50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 
Maricopa County, Arizona.

    Date of amendment request: September 27, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.3, ``Control Element Assembly 
Calculators (CEACS),'' to reinstate an inadvertently omitted 4-hour 
completion time to Required Action B.2.2. Additionally, the amendment 
would revise a test frequency note within a Surveillance Requirement 
(SR) under TS 3.3.6, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System 
(ESFAS) Logic and Manual Trip,'' which should have been addressed in 
the license amendment request for Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 
Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
    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 reinstatement of the 4-hour completion time within TS 3.3.3 
does not alter existing controls on plant operation (i.e., safety 
limit values, [Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs)], 
Surveillance Requirements or Design Features). Functions which are 
necessary to operate the facility safely and in accordance with the 
operating licenses remain in effect. The proposed change will not 
affect the operation of structures, systems, or components, and will 
not reduce programmatic controls such that the plant safety would be 
affected.
    The revision to the SR testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6 
relocates the specified frequency to licensee control under the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP). Surveillance 
frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components 
required by the technical specifications for which this frequency is 
being relocated are still required to be operable, meet the 
acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirement, and be capable 
of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident 
analysis.
    Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 6641]]

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The reinstatement of the 4-hour completion time within TS 3.3.3 
is an administrative correction. It will not affect the operation of 
structures, systems, or components, and will not reduce programmatic 
controls such that plant safety would be affected.
    No new or different accidents result from the revision to the SR 
testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6. The 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, this change does not impose any 
new or different requirements. This change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. This change is consistent 
with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating 
practice.
    Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The reinstatement of the 4-hour completion time within TS 3.3.3 
is administrative and will not diminish any administrative controls 
currently in place. The proposed change will not affect the 
operation of structures, systems, or components, and will not reduce 
programmatic controls such that plant safety would be affected.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases 
to the TS), since these are not affected by the proposed change 
which will revise the SR testing frequency note under TS 3.3.6. 
Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria 
as described in the plant licensing basis.
    Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Associate General 
Counsel--Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, 
P.O. Box 52034, Mail Stop 7602, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, 
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 25, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments requests 
transition of the fire protection licensing basis at Catawba Nuclear 
Station, Units 1 and 2 from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 50.48(b), to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) 805.
    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.
    Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the 
proposed amendment does not increase the probability or consequences 
of accidents previously evaluated. The Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report documents the analyses of design basis accidents at Catawba 
Nuclear Station. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect 
accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility and does not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems, and components to perform their 
design function. Structures, systems, and components required to 
safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown 
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit Catawba Nuclear 
Station to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which 
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 
805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify Fire Protection system and features that are 
an acceptable alternative to Catawba Nuclear Station's existing fire 
protection requirements. Engineering Analyses, in accordance with 
NFPA 805, have been performed to demonstrate that the risk-informed 
performance-based requirements for NFPA 805 have been met.
    The NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable 
alternative to 10 CFR 50.48(b) and satisfies 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 
General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and meets 
the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection 
regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in depth and the 
goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in 
Chapter 1 of the standard. The small increases in core damage 
frequency associated with the LAR submittal are consistent with the 
Commission's Safety Goal Policy. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.48(c) 
allows self-approval of the fire protection program changes post-
transition. If there are any increases post-transition in core 
damage frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent 
with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains 
capable of performing the assumed function.
    Therefore, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased with the implementation of the 
amendment.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the 
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
Any scenario or previously analyzed accident with offsite dose was 
included in the evaluation of design basis accidents documented in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change does 
not alter the requirements or function for systems required during 
accident conditions. Implementation of the new Fire Protection 
licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 
50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG 1.205 will not result in new 
or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident 
initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of structure, systems, and components 
to perform their design function. Structure, systems, and components 
required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design 
functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit Catawba Nuclear 
Station to adopt a new Fire Protection licensing basis which 
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in RG 1.205. The NRC considers that the NFPA 805 provides 
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify Fire Protection systems and features that are an acceptable 
alternative to Catawba Nuclear Station's existing fire protection 
requirements.
    The requirements in the NFPA 805 address only Fire Protection 
and the impacts of fire on the plant have already been evaluated. 
Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind 
of accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not 
involve new failure mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate a 
new accident.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created with the implementation of this amendment.

[[Page 6642]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner 
in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed 
amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or 
the reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed amendment does 
not adversely affect the ability of Structure, Systems, and 
Components to perform their design function. Structure, Systems, and 
Components required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain 
it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their 
design functions.
    The purpose of this amendment is to permit Catawba Nuclear 
Station to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which 
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in RG 1.205. The NRC considers that the NFPA 805 provides 
an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to 
identify Fire Protection systems and features that are an acceptable 
alternative to Catawba Nuclear Station's existing fire protection 
requirements. Engineering analyses, which may include engineering 
evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling 
calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the 
performance-based methods do not result in a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Based on this, the implementation of this amendment does not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes are 
evaluated to ensure that risk and safety margins are kept within 
acceptable limits. Therefore, the transition does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The NFPA 805 continues to protect public health and safety and 
the common defense and security because the overall approach of the 
NFPA 805 is consistent with the key principles for evaluating 
license basis changes, as described in RG 1.174, is consistent with 
the defense-in-depth philosophy, and maintains sufficient safety 
margins.
    Margins previously established for the Catawba Nuclear Station 
Fire Protection program in accordance with existing fire protection 
requirements are not significantly reduced.
    Therefore, this amendment does not result in a 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: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment requests: November 15, 2013.
    Description of amendment requests: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specification requirements related to the response 
time for the main steam line flow-high isolation function.
    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 increase in Main Steam Line (MSL) High Flow 
Isolation System Instrumentation Response Time from <= 0.5 seconds 
to <= 1.0 seconds does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
(i.e., Main Steam Line Break (MSLB)). GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, 
using the SAFER04A Engineering Computer Program (SAFER), has 
performed an analysis of the impact to existing MSLB analysis using 
1.0 seconds as the new response time input for the instrument 
channel high flow trip signal. The analysis concluded that for the 
worst case conditions, which is the Hot Standby initial operating 
condition, by increasing the instrument delay for Main Steam Line 
Isolation Valve (MSIV) actuation from 0.5 seconds to 1.0 seconds, 
the water mass release is increased by about 12%, the steam mass 
release is increased by about 8%, and the total coolant mass release 
increased by about 12% to 115,700 pounds mass (lbm). The major 
source of coolant activity which contributes to the released dose is 
contained in the coolant that is initially released in the liquid 
water phase. The enveloping total coolant mass release for 
radiological consequence evaluation is 140,000 lbm liquid; 
therefore, the MSLB total coolant mass release values calculated in 
this analysis remain bounded and the original MSLB Accident Dose 
Evaluation remains unchanged.
    In regards to Peak Cladding Temperatures (PCT), the MSLB 
Accident is considered in evaluating a plant's response for fuel 
integrity and barrier protection to Loss of Coolant Accidents 
(LOCAs). Specifically, the MSLB Accident breaks either inside 
containment or outside containment are considered for fuel heat-up 
and neither scenario is limiting for Peak Cladding Temperature. The 
MSLB LOCA PCT response is not affected by the proposed amendment.
    There are no special events analyses (Anticipated Transient 
Without Scram (ATWS), Fire Safe Shutdown, or Station Blackout) that 
consider main steam line breaks.
    For building compartments that contain safety related equipment, 
the proposed increase in the instrument response time does not 
impact the calculated peak pressures and temperatures that occur at 
approximately 1.0 seconds since the blowdown flow is not impacted 
until the MSIVs are assumed to start closing at 5.0 seconds. 
However, the increase in response time could have an impact on the 
overall duration of the blowdown. The MSL High Energy Line Break 
(HELB) Analysis was revised to conservatively assume that the MSIVs 
remain fully open for 6.0 seconds (5.0 seconds + 1.0 seconds) and 
the total blowdown duration was increased from 6.5 seconds to 7.0 
seconds. The revised HELB analysis confirmed that the critical peak 
temperatures and pressures did not change in building compartments 
containing safety related equipment and that the only impact was a 
less than 4.0-degree Fahrenheit increase in the main condenser area 
compartment and steam venting plenum compartment peak temperatures. 
These two compartments do not contain safety-related environmentally 
qualified equipment. Therefore, this minimal increase in peak 
temperature has no adverse impact on the plant.
    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 increase in MSL High Flow Isolation System 
Instrumentation Response Time from <= 0.5 seconds to <= 1.0 seconds 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change 
only affects the primary containment isolation system response time, 
which is a mitigating system, for which the effects have been 
specifically evaluated for impact to the MSLB Accident and found to 
be acceptable. There are no special events analyses (ATWS, Fire Safe 
Shutdown, or Station Blackout) that consider main steam line breaks. 
The pressure and temperature of affected compartments do not affect 
the environmental qualification or performance of safety related 
equipment.
    The instrument channel logic delay time associated with this 
proposal was not postulated as an initiator of any previously 
analyzed accident, and is not expected to create any new system 
interactions, transient precursors, or failure modes of any 
structures, systems and components (SSCs). Thus, equipment important 
to safety will continue to operate as designed, and the proposed 
change will not result in any

[[Page 6643]]

adverse conditions or any increase in challenges to safety systems.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed increase in MSL High Flow Isolation System 
Instrumentation Response Time from <= 0.5 seconds to <= 1.0 seconds 
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The 
proposed change will increase the total calculated total coolant 
mass release from 108,785 lbm to 115,700 lbm. The change in the 
total coolant mass release of 6,915 lbm is well within the current 
available margin (~31,200 lbm) to the 140,000 lbm bounding value 
used for the radiological consequence evaluation.
    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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Associate 
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G. Lamb.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: December 12, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will 
revise the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Technical 
Specifications (TSs). The proposed amendment will adopt TS Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System 
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, along with the NRC's edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing SR [surveillance 
requirement] to operate the Standby Gas Treatment System for a 
minimum of 10 hours at a frequency controlled in accordance with the 
SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program] with a requirement to 
operate the system for a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP.
    This system is not an accident initiator and therefore, this 
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed change is consistent with current 
regulatory guidance for this system and will continue to assure that 
this system performs its design function which may include 
mitigating accidents. Thus, the change does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate the 
Standby Gas Treatment System for a minimum of 10 hours at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement 
to operate the system for a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP.
    The change proposed for this ventilation system does not change 
any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing SR to operate the 
Standby Gas Treatment System for a minimum of 10 hours at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP with a requirement 
to operate the system for a minimum of 15 continuous minutes at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the SFCP. The proposed 
change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. J. Bradley Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, 
Warrenville, IL 60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: John G. Lamb.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Emergency Plan, in accordance with 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix E, Section 1.5, to comply with the regulatory changes 
published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2011, (76 FR 72560), 
``Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations.'' Eleven topics 
for change were described in the published rule.
    In addition, the requested amendment proposes to change License 
Condition 2.D(12)(d) of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses to 
require a detailed staffing analysis to be performed no later than 180 
days before initial fuel load.
    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 VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan provides assurance that the 
requirements of emergency preparedness regulations are met. The 
changes do not affect the design, construction, or operation of the 
nuclear plant, so there is no change to the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Adding a license 
condition related to an emergency preparedness staffing analysis and 
changing the VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan does not affect prevention 
and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, 
or their safety or design analyses as the purpose of the plan is to 
implement emergency preparedness regulations. No safety-related 
structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely 
affected. The change does not involve nor interface with any SSC 
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the 
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the [Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. Because the changes 
do not involve any SSC or function used to mitigate an accident, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase 
in the probability or

[[Page 6644]]

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 VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan provides assurance that the 
requirements of emergency preparedness regulations are met. The 
changes do not affect the design, construction, or operation of the 
nuclear plant, so there is no new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated. The changes do not affect safety-
related equipment, nor do they affect equipment which, if it failed, 
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product 
barrier. In addition, the changes do not result in a new failure 
mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or 
safety-related equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The VEGP 3 and 4 Emergency Plan provides assurance that the 
requirements of emergency preparedness regulations are met. The 
changes do not affect the assessments or the plant itself. The 
changes do not affect safety-related equipment or equipment whose 
failure could initiate an accident, nor does it adversely interface 
with safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the requested change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

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 are available for public inspection at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 
20852. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are 
accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the 
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
[email protected].

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 application of amendments: June 27, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated December 14, 2012, May 28, July 26, November 26, 
December 6, and December 12, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' Required Action 
C.2.2.5 to allow a temporary one-time Completion Time extension of 62 
days to restore an inoperable Keowee Hydro Unit (KHU) for the purpose 
of performing generator field pole rewind work on each KHU.
    Date of Issuance: January 8, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 383, 385, and 384.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the license and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR 
60149). The supplemental letters dated December 14, 2012, May 28, July 
26, November 26, December 6, and December 12, 2013, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 8, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: November 19, 2012, as 
supplemented by letter dated September 13, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Technical 
Specification 3.7.10 to require a unit shutdown within the TS 3.7.10 
Actions instead of entering Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.3 when 
both Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) trains are 
inoperable in MODE 1, 2, 3, or 4 due to actions taken as a result of a 
tornado warning and the Completion Time of 8 hours for restoration of 
at least one CREVS train to OPERABLE status is not met.
    Date of issuance: January 14, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 60 days from date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 94.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2013 (78 FR 
16886). The supplement letter dated September 13, 2013, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a

[[Page 6645]]

Safety Evaluation dated January 14, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of application for amendment: August 29, 2011, as supplemented 
by letters dated November 9, 2011, April 17 and July 12, 2012, and 
February 19, August 5, September 24, and December 19, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment transitions the 
Callaway Plant fire protection program to a risk-informed, performance-
based program based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 
805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). The NFPA 805 allows the use of 
performance-based methods such as fire modeling and risk-informed 
methods such as fire probabilistic risk assessment to demonstrate 
compliance with the nuclear safety performance criteria.
    Date of issuance: January 13, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by 8 months from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 206.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the 
Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register :February 14, 2012 (77 
FR 8294). The supplements dated November 9, 2011, April 17 and July 12, 
2012, and February 19, August 5, September 24, and December 19, 2013, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 13, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of application for amendment: December 20, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated June 6 and August 29, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised a methodology 
in the licensing basis as described in the Final Safety Analysis 
Report--Standard Plant to include damping values for the seismic design 
and analysis of the integrated head assembly that are consistent with 
the recommendations of the NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.61, ``Damping 
Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 1, March 
2007.
    Date of issuance: January 14, 2014.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 207.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the 
Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 
14139). The supplemental letters dated June 6 and August 29, 2013, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 14, 2014.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of January 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-02048 Filed 2-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P